Susan Kennedy wrote:

> > "frlpwr" > wrote in message ...

> > jitney wrote:> > >

> > > If, in your interesting ethical world, animals have rights, just
> > > how do you propose to protect the animals from each other?

> > In my "interesting ethical world", it would not be my place to
>> interfere in the lives of other animals. Being a big Buttinsky,
> > this would be and is now a difficult lesson for me.

> Then your whole premise is faulty, for by trying to convince other
> animals of your own species (you were the one who said humans were
> just another species of animal) that they should not eat animals of
> other species, or raise them as food, use them as test animals, or
> keep them as pets, you *are* interfering with other animals. Seems to
> me this is a direct contradiction of what you claim to want.

I understood jitney's "in your interesting ethical world" to be a
hypothetical, a time and place where humans had already relinquished
their hold on other species. I thought this because her/his question
was followed by examples of non-human/non-human encounters only.

(snip)

> > > but at least wild deer have the opportunity to try their skill
> > > against the wolf and, many times, they win.

> Why do you think the same thing isn't true of human hunters?

Except for notable exceptions, like canned hunts, organized and red mist
shoots, baiting, hunting with dogs, it is. Other than the odd feral
animal, an opportunity for escape is not afforded livestock.

(snip)

> > Hopefully, she dies on the sweet soil of her own territory and not
> > on a sanitized, concrete slab in a zoo. Hopefully, her lifeless
> > form will be

> Where do you live, anyway? The zoos around here don't have concrete
> slabs, at least not where the animals are outside.

Would an infirmed elephant be euthanized in an outside display or group
enclosure in Nebraska zoos?

(snip)

> > mourned by her vigilant family, not carted off to the renderer
> > before the afternoon crowds arrive.

> That only happens if her family outlives her.

Yes, that would appear to be a requirement for a family vigil.

> - whether she's in the zoo or out of it.

Do you think zoo elephants are allowed the privilege of mourning rituals
for their fallen friends?

> Perhaps you would prefer the rotting carcass to be left for the
> flies?

No, I would prefer elephants not be on display in zoos.

> Although to be honest, for all I know, they feed it to the carnivore
> or scavenger species...

More likely the carcass is rendered before being used in animal feeds.

(snip)

> > We don't allow most livestock to play this glorious game.

> Most livestock would not survive this "glorious game".

And why is that? Many of their wild cousins do.

> BTW, I seriously doubt if the animals who do "play" this game view it
> as anything but deadly serious,

Life is serious business. Did I say otherwise?

> or that they see anything glorious about it. Most of them don't
> have a clue what that word even means.

Why would it be necessary to put a word to it?

> To them, life is just that: life.

The Life that animates the steer is the same Life than animates you. To
all of us, life is just that: life.

(snip)

> Hardly. Have you ever been around animals? I must say you don't seem
> to know a whole lot about them.

Why? Because I don't hunt them or raise them for slaughter? Can you
only "know" an animal if you kill it?

> > > Would you sentence the lion to life in prison for murder?
> > > Or would the death penalty be more appropriate?

> > The lion is an obligate carnivore and a subsistence hunter, she must
> > kill. Even so, most of the lion's hunting forays fail and her
> > target persists for another day. When is it the packer hog's turn
> > to win?

> > We get our meat a different way,

Yes, most of the meat in America comes from confined animals, animals
who are under the absolute control of man from conception to slaughter.

> because we're more intelligent than most animals.

Raising animals in intensive systems is cruel and I don't think cruelty
is ever intelligent. Do you equate profitability with intelligence?

> > > Would pheasants be hunted down for the serial murder of bugs?

> > No. Should pheasants be bred, raised and released in front of an
> > advancing line of people with guns?

> > They aren't released "in front" of anybody, if the "game" is played
> > correctly.

I'm sure you realize there is a big difference between hunting pheasants
and participating in a pheasant shoot.

Watch out, though, if you try to define the correct way to play the
game, someone will accuse you of stepping on their rights. I don't see
hunters, as a group, condemning the practice of bird shoots, red mist or
canned hunts. One animal killer is loathe to tell another how he
must kill.

> Most hunters hunt because they like to hunt
> - no to participate in the ritual slaughter of animals.

Killing is an integral part of the hunt. Without the kill, hunting
isn't hunting, it's tracking. I have no objection to tracking, I do it
myself.

> People who do that don't know what real hunting is.

"Real hunting" is not an enforceable legal concept.

(snip)

> > We have the luxury or the gift to choose to be kind. Why not use > > it?

> Perhaps because the majority of us do not see what you describe as a
> kindness.
> In other words, by our lights, we *are* using it.

If you set your ethical standards low enough, you can't fail.