Net: As a further n…

Net: As a further nod to the nobility and heroism of the newest (and, frankly, best-smelling) street people on Washington Avenue, we hereby dedicate today’s Network to the rabbit we tried to run over with a golf cart yesterday.
We missed, but man, what a ride.
From Air Hog: In an effort to explain the mad barrage of animal rights protesting recently, I have come across a theory. We all know that animal rights protesters are CLA scholars. Net: And we all know you’re an itty-bitty flibbertigibbet with buck teeth and a lisp. It’s a fact. My theory is that the caged protesters on Washington Avenue are recent graduates with liberal arts degrees. This type of degree obviously lends itself to extreme poverty. Net: Just as an electrical engineering degree lends itself to an appalling lack of social skills. It’s all there in the course guide. To avoid costs of shelter and food, the protesters have devised a clever plan. Every week, they will band together and “protest.” “Protesting” allows extended overnight “housing”; be it on the side of Moos Tower or in a cage on the sidewalk. Net: Likewise, animal testing provides pleasant steel cages and three squares a day (sometimes) for helpless rodents. When times get really tough, protesters like to “fast,” or not spend money on food for a while. Net: We’d rather dig through a friend’s couch and use the change to buy ramen. So to all you protesters out there, we’re onto your scheme … it took awhile, but we’ve got you now.
My theory is best summed in haiku:
Fight for animals
The cause lets us sleep for free
Someone please feed me
From Natural Selection: Network, I have been an off-and-on fan for years, and now that I am in grad school, I can read your sarcastic, wonderful musings every day.
I would like to throw in my two-cents worth on the animal rights debate. I should start by saying that I applaud them. How many of the people who disagree with them have ever done anything half so difficult or been half as passionate about what they care about?
My comment is that the debate seems to be between those who feel that animal life is every bit as sacred as human life and those who feel that the animal experiments are important because they help further medical science. Net: If the debate was limited only to those with such clear-cut ideological motivations, we might not be carrying on this discussion. I come down more on the first side than the latter, but in the instance of Dr. Carroll’s work, I am firmly of the first belief. For crying out loud, her research as reported has been on drug addiction. We are not talking about research to help out an innocent kid who got leukemia or someone’s kind old grandma with Alzheimer’s here. We are talking about people stupid enough to cause their own medical problem. Net: Yeah, like crack babies. And people who become addicted to prescription drugs. Trivial stuff like that. Are these people we want in the gene pool? I am just about as liberal and compassionate Net: !!!??? as they come, and I firmly believe in sacrifice to help others, but let’s get real here. If you consciously use a drug, get addicted and can’t get off on your own, should society spend huge amounts of money and destroy the lives of research animals to save your sorry ass? Net: Drug abuse as societal cleansing, as defined by Natural Selection. Nice. I believe society should do everything possible to help keep people off drugs, Net: Except for finding out what keeps them on drugs, of course. including fighting the poverty and racism in this country that fuels the thirst for drugs, but if you are well enough off to be using drugs for fun and not as an escape from a sad life, and you get addicted, then too damn bad!
Thanks, Net, for letting me get that off my chest. Net: And thank you, dear writer, for helping to reduce the collective IQ of Networkia.
P.S. to MB: My undergrad degree is in biology. I got almost all A’s.
From Root to Phlegm of Discontent: *Sigh*
Your “arguments” against animal “rights” are the same shallow and tired ones people like you always try and use. Net: From “Net’s Tips for Effective Argumentation,” Chapter 3: Always overgeneralize; remember to incorporate phrases such as “people like you” into your rants. And it usually seems you think you’re so ingenious as to have thought of something that no AR person has ever had to refute. Net: From Chapter 7: Always insult the intelligence of the person with whom you’re arguing. It does nothing to bolster your argument, but it sure makes you feel better. And I really don’t feel like giving the same answers I always give to people like you, whose only response is, “I like to eat meat,” which is generally the most intelligent thing they can come up with. Net: From Chapter 4: Always question why you’re even having this discussion at all. If I were to come up to you and say, “I like to eat vegetables,” would you consider that a legitimate response to a complex philosophical question? Net: From Chapter 12: Always try to beef up (no pun intended) your opinion with a few well-placed rhetorical questions.
As for your anti-protest activities, could you think of something more juvenile, please? Net: From Chapter 9: Don’t be afraid to employ some reverse psychology, even if you think it might give your opponent some more ideas. Eating meat in front of AR activists? Good one, and original also. Is this to mean you’re the type of person who would have beaten a slave in front of an abolitionist, or would throw fetuses at pro-lifers? Net: From Chapter 1: Exaggerate, exaggerate, exaggerate. You don’t have to agree with them, but at least respect them.
And you had better think of something more original, because the people in the cages have already had urine, lit cigarettes and harsh words thrown at them. Net: What were they expecting, to be ogled like human mannequins?