I'm talking about Jones, not every celebrity everywhere. Occasionally crazy people get lucky. Why assume he has a good business mind? Your characterization seems pretty presumptuous. I'm just saying that it's entirely possible that he genuinely believes what he says, that he's inconsistent (like all human beings are), and that he happened to land himself in a position where he attracts the ears of predispositioned listeners.
Let me ask you: what's the difference between Jones and any other person with those same idiosyncratic beliefs? You would see the exact same results if someone who genuinely believed these things was in his position. So why assume he's disingenuous? It just seems to me that you're crying "conspiracy" where no evidence really exists.
I don't follow. The guy is obviously an astute business man (or he has some excellent silent partners directing the enterprise). Infowars/Prison Planet has grown to be quite the polished, self contained media outlet since it's early days as a pretty much spam text only website.
He's doing exactly the same thing as other talking heads have done, except he's doing it alone instead of riding a network like the O'Reillys and Jon Stewart's of the media world.
I don't see the "conspiracy" angle behind that, other than maybe an internal one. Of course I leave the COINTELPRO option open for an actual "conspiracy" option
I know you don't. But this much is clear: animals don't treat humans according to any overbearing doctrine of rights. Obviously, they don't have the capacity to do so (that we know of), with certain potential exceptions. Does this mean that humans have an obligation to treat animals as though they have rights? Why should we presume to have any obligation?
I agree. Animals in their fullest state of "consciousness" (or lack thereof) are driven by instinct. An example I would use for differentiation between humans and animals:
I can place myself in the shoes of another person, and wonder what it would be like to feel the drone strike, the lash, etc. If I place myself in the place of an animal, I can no longer "know". I am merely driven by instinctual urges.
I'm not saying that we are justified in treating animals poorly. I'm saying that we don't need a doctrine of rights in order to do so. Why not operate under an empathetic ethics that refigures "rights" as the space projected by our cognitive capacity to understand that other organisms experience pain. This space doesn't actually exist, it simply allows for a mediated association. An animal doesn't have "rights" any more than a human does. We, however, have a capacity to understand pain in a cognitive way that other animals don't have. This alleviates animals from having to operate under the presumption of "rights" while still encouraging humans toward an ethical treatment of animals.
I just think the argument of rights-based ethics is misleadingly foundational. Rights don't originate in an organism; but the atavistic notion of rights that emerges from such arguments suggests something absolute, which in turn puts animals under scrutiny for not operating according to such rights.
I argue against mistreatment of animals for two reasons, neither having to do with rights:
1. Mistreatment of animals (whether through torture through physical abuse, or through "Mad Doctor" methods of CAFO operations) creates a food source that is rendered significantly reduced in nutrition, as well as introducing many potential toxins to the body.
2. Mistreatment of animals, being fleshly creatures, hardens the ability to empathize and respect life in other forms (to include humans). A eagerness to brutalize other living things is usually not limited to non-humans. Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms (for an example) rotates butcher duties to keep one person from becoming "a butcher".
