On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 00:05:18 GMT, island > wrote:

>Immortalist wrote:
[...]
>> Why not talk about the differentia of human and non-human animals in
>> relation to what the term benifit reflects in events?
>
>
>I really have no interest in this subject at that level, but some of the
>discussion has managed to touch on one lil thing that this whole
>discussion revolves around:
>
>First it should be made clear that morality is determined relatively,
>(subject to environmental changes), but the more universal and enduring
>a given moral law is, then the more absolute. Simple as that.

We are changing the environment in huge ways, and so it seems
that we should adapt our thinking to include those changes. "ARAs"
appear to want us to disregard some of the facts involved, and one
of the facts they would most like us to disregard is that many animals
benefit from farming. Many of them are harmed by it as well, and they
do want us to consider some of them--not the ones that die in their
crop fields however. What they most want us to disregard is the fact
that some farm animals benefit from their relationship with humans,
because they want to eliminate all domestic animals.
As humans take control over more and more of the Earth's
surface, they have an ever greater influence on which animals can
survive in those areas and which ones can not. We create new
habitats, and need to put more thought into which animals are going
to survive there. We are influencing evolution, and have been since
before humans began farming. Domestic animals are just a greater
example of controlled evolution. That doesn't make them wrong.
Some have good lives and some have terrible lives, and they need
to be examined on a case by case basis. It's absurd to just think
that it's all bad or that it's all good.

>Humans "worship" life, due to the survival instinct if nothing else, and
>so we "understand", (project), that killing is "wrong" because of this.
>We also "understand" the pain and suffering that is involved with death
>and mistreatment of other living beings, and so in this respect also, we
>sense that a moral law is being challenged as it applies to "dumb"
>animals and so extremists, *uh hurm*... will latch onto this as some
>kind of golden rule or something, when in reality, any moral
>implications get superseded by a more primal level of the survival
>instinct.

It seems that would vary greatly from one individual to another.

>We do, however still harbor the weaker feeling simultaneously, and so we
>"try" to impress upon those that raise dumb animals as food sources that
>the animals life has some value and should be treated with some degree
>of dignity as a result.

A person couldn't rightly consider himself a decent person if he didn't
treat his animals decently, could he?

>There's always an absurdity involved with any extremist view,

"AR"/veg*nism is the most extreme position possible. There is no reason
to believe that the most extreme position either way is the "best" way to
approach an issue like human influence on animals.
"Animal Rights" would not really provide animals with rights anyway.
It's a gross misnomer used to obtain more donations, because the name
suggests that it would help animals. Using the dishonest name makes
them attractive to more groups of people than it would if they were more
honest and used a name like pEda (people for the Extinction of domestic
animals). All that "AR" really would accomplish is the elimination of domestic
animals, and the elimination of human wildlife population management.
Animals would still be killed in most ways they are today that "ARAs" happily
contribute to like growing crops, mining, production of wood, paper and
electricity, construction of roads and buildings, etc...

>but the
>idealization does often serve to produce a counterbalancing effect which
>serves to, uh... "benefit" the animals by way of the laws that get
>passed and theoretically enforced in their favor... thanks to "watchdog
>organizations" that are formed in behalf of squeaky wheels like our
>resident fanatic.

There is a huge difference between "Animal Rights" and Animal
Welfare. I believe that many people who don't understand the
difference contribute to "AR" groups, when they are really more in
favor of better AW. There are several reasons I believe that, but one
of the most obvious is that I've seen PeTA referred to as an AW group
in the news more than once.
__________________________________________________ _______
AVMA Policy on Animal Welfare and Animal Rights

Animal welfare is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects
of animal well-being, from proper housing and nutrition to preventive
care, treatment of disease, and when necessary, humane euthanasia.
The AVMA's commitment to animal welfare is unsurpassed.

However, animal welfare and animal rights are not the same. AVMA cannot
endorse the philosophical views and personal values of animal rights
advocates when they are incompatible with the responsible use of animals
for human purposes, such as food and fiber, and for research conducted
to benefit both humans and animals.

http://www.avma.org./care4pets/morewelf.htm#rights
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
As two recent issues of Alternatives in Philanthropy discussed
("Animal Welfare vs. Animal Rights: The Case of PETA," July 1997,
and "The Humane Society of the U.S.: It’s Not about Animal
Shelters," October 1997), animal rights organizations seek to end
traditional uses of animals. By contrast, animal welfare organizations
seek to improve the treatment of animals. Animal lovers who wish
to support animal-interest organizations should keep this distinction in
mind.
[...]
http://www.capitalresearch.org/publi...998/august.htm

see also:
http://www.capitalresearch.org/publi...97/october.htm
http://www.capitalresearch.org/publi.../1997/july.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about
by human manipulation." -- Ingrid Newkirk, national director,
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us?
Toward a Nation of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August
1988, p. 50.

"Liberating our language by eliminating the word 'pet' is the
first step... In an ideal society where all exploitation and
oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to
oppose the keeping of animals as 'pets.'" --New Jersey Animal
Rights Alliance, "Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!" Good Dog!
February 1991, p. 20.

"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete
jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains
by which we enslave it." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An
Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.

"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the
domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and
more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to
exist." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A
Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
[...]
"We are not especially 'interested in' animals. Neither of us had
ever been inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or horses in the way
that many people are. We didn't 'love' animals." --Peter Singer,
Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd
ed. (New York Review of Books, 1990), Preface, p. ii.

"The theory of animal rights simply is not consistent with the
theory of animal welfare... Animal rights means dramatic social
changes for humans and non-humans alike; if our bourgeois values
prevent us from accepting those changes, then we have no right to
call ourselves advocates of animal rights." --Gary Francione,
The Animals' Voice, Vol. 4, No. 2 (undated), pp. 54-55.

"Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal
welfare separated by irreconcilable differences... the enactment
of animal welfare measures actually impedes the achievement of
animal rights... Welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only
serve to retard the pace at which animal rights goals are
achieved." --Gary Francione and Tom Regan, "A Movement's Means
Create Its Ends," The Animals' Agenda, January/February 1992,
pp. 40-42.
[...]
http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla...ights/pets.txt
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯