Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
PETA,
Rubystars wrote: > "Offbreed" > wrote in message > om... <snip> >> >>If you think about what they advocate, they are pushing for the end of >>all human/nonhuman interaction. This allows them to constantly move >>the goalposts. > Yes, they don't want people to keep pets, go to zoos, or anything else that > would allow humans to interact with animals. Not keeping "pets" (or actually, companion animals) is a long-term goal, not anything that is going to happen any time soon. But this shows the poverty of imagination non-ARAs have: you can only imagine humans interacting with animals in ways that dominate and control them. I can think of many ways to interact with animals on terms of mutual freedom. So can PETA (of which I am a long-term member, since 1984). They probably wish humans would > go extinct. Why? Humans are an animal species, too, and worth preserving in the right situations. >>With such "liberal" movements, the issue addressed is not the issue >>actually persued. The issue actually persued is power. Yes the issue is power, the power of humans over other creatures. The ultimate goal of PETA is to eliminate such power, voluntarily give up power. The human-dominationists can't imagine such a thing, so they invent all sorts of sinister conspiracies on the part of their opponents. >>Note how what they demand cannot be attained without the imposition of >>a totalitarian government? Of course it can. You're projecting again. They are not "liberal" in anything except >>in throwing around demands that others do as they say. > Yes, that's true. No, it's a bunch of nonsense. Rat |
|
|||
|
|||
PETA,
"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message ... > > > Rubystars wrote: > > > "Offbreed" > wrote in message > > om... > > <snip> > >> > >>If you think about what they advocate, they are pushing for the end of > >>all human/nonhuman interaction. This allows them to constantly move > >>the goalposts. > > > Yes, they don't want people to keep pets, go to zoos, or anything else that > > would allow humans to interact with animals. > > Not keeping "pets" (or actually, companion animals) is a long-term goal, > not anything that is going to happen any time soon. So why do they give exotics owners such a hard time? >But this shows the > poverty of imagination non-ARAs have: you can only imagine humans > interacting with animals in ways that dominate and control them. I feel that animals contribute a lot to our society and we need to use them in order for society to keep on functioning. I think that humans have a duty to treat animals humanely though. >I can > think of many ways to interact with animals on terms of mutual freedom. > So can PETA (of which I am a long-term member, since 1984). What are some of the ways you're thinking of? Bird watching? That's not interaction, its watching from far away with binoculars. > They probably wish humans would > > go extinct. > > Why? Humans are an animal species, too, and worth preserving in the > right situations. What are those "right situations?" > >>With such "liberal" movements, the issue addressed is not the issue > >>actually persued. The issue actually persued is power. > > Yes the issue is power, the power of humans over other creatures. > The ultimate goal of PETA is to eliminate such power, voluntarily > give up power. The human-dominationists can't imagine such a > thing, so they invent all sorts of sinister conspiracies on the > part of their opponents. It's pretty sinister to turn children against their parents, wouldn't you agree? > >>Note how what they demand cannot be attained without the imposition >of > >>a totalitarian government? > > Of course it can. You're projecting again. How can you stop people from using animals if you don't institute totalitarianism? People aren't going to stop on their own. If they would, there would be little need for PETA. <snip> -Rubystars |
|
|||
|
|||
Sleazy PETA, gratuitously provocative and tasteless as ever
Elle Mathews wrote: >Beach Runner > wrote in message om>... > > >>Well, I think Peta does more to hurt the vegetarian/vegan movement >>with acts like that. It's sad, but it makes vegetarians look like a >>bunch of insensitive, insane, immature people. We should be projecting >>the exact opposite message. >> >> > > >Please, that's nonsense to suggest that PETA does more harm than good. >Can you offer anything better. Personally, they're in my will. I'm a >supportive member. Do you really have any data to support your >position? I think not. > > There are tremendous amounts of data on marketing and sales. Dale Carnigie's book, the classic is the best start there is in how to persuade people. The basic rule is "avoid the acute angle". Most of Peta's goals I agree with. I happen to think we need to keep our priorities in order, and the most important goal is to protect habitate so to preserve species and diversity. A world where more people are mostly vegetarians does more to protect animals than 1 holier than thou vegan. If Pritikin got 100 people to reduce their animal consumption 25% that adds up to a lot more good than 1 vegan. I also know that people thinking vegetarians are crazy is not good for a movement based on logic and reasoning. With logic and reasoning, science the world can make vast improvents. Bob |
|
|||
|
|||
Give me a break!
Russ Thompson wrote:
> (snip) > > When a vegan / animal rights types uses information, disinformation, > half trueths, and propaganda to discourage others from consuming > animal products who do you think it is who suffers? The large farm > with huge amounts of capital behind them that allow them to take the > resulting lower prices or the small family farmer who is operating > under slim margins already? Face it, lady, small livestock producers can't out compete corporate farms for cheap meat. That's not the fault of vegans. You can either cave in and do contract work for the packers or you can go for the niche market of humanely-raised, pastured livestock. Have you certified your farm with the Humane Farming Association? (snip) |
|
|||
|
|||
Give me a break!
Snip > > > > Since when does the small farmer giles do anything other then for > > themselves? > > *** Well as I have said I am not a native speaker of english and I do not > know what "giles" means. > > Kala Thompson > Farmer > Richland Center, Wi USA > Giles is just an English surname, and "Farmer Giles" is an old expression referring to any farmer still using "old fashioned" ways.. The Q |
|
|||
|
|||
PETA,
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:51:06 -0700, Rat & Swan > wrote:
> > >Rubystars wrote: > >> "Offbreed" > wrote in message >> om... > ><snip> >>> >>>If you think about what they advocate, they are pushing for the end of >>>all human/nonhuman interaction. This allows them to constantly move >>>the goalposts. > >> Yes, they don't want people to keep pets, go to zoos, or anything else that >> would allow humans to interact with animals. > >Not keeping "pets" (or actually, companion animals) is a long-term goal, >not anything that is going to happen any time soon. __________________________________________________ _______ [...] "One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding...We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding." (Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, former director of the Fund for Animals, Animal People, May 1993) [...] Tom Regan, Animal Rights Author and Philosopher, North Carolina State University "It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands...but empty cages." (Regan, The Philosophy of Animal Rights, 1989) http://www.agcouncil.com/leaders.htm ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ 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 ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ [...] "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 ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ [...] According to the Associated Press (AP) PETA killed 1325 dogs and cats in Norfolk last year. That was more than half the number of animals is took in during that period. According to Virginian-Pilot Reporter, Kerry Dougherty, the execution rate at PETA's "shelter" far exceeds that of the local Norfolk SPCA shelter where only a third of animals taken in are "put down." [...] http://www.iwmc.org/newsletter/2000/2000-08g.htm ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >But this shows the >poverty of imagination non-ARAs have: you can only imagine humans >interacting with animals in ways that dominate and control them. I can >think of many ways to interact with animals on terms of mutual freedom. >So can PETA (of which I am a long-term member, since 1984). What are some examples of them doing it? > They probably wish humans would >> go extinct. > >Why? Humans are an animal species, too, and worth preserving in the >right situations. > >>>With such "liberal" movements, the issue addressed is not the issue >>>actually persued. The issue actually persued is power. > >Yes the issue is power, the power of humans over other creatures. >The ultimate goal of PETA is to eliminate such power, voluntarily >give up power. The human-dominationists can't imagine such a >thing, We can imagine it. Let's do, shall we? Let's start with something small, like we don't kill rats or mice any more. Obviously their numbers would increase to the point that it would have a great negative influence on humans. And the fleas that go along with them, and the ****... We could haul them all off someplace to kill each other you say? Where exactly do you think they should go, and how to get them there? It wouldn't work. You know that they are a problem now, and they are no doubt being killed by the millions, so you tell us how it would go if those millions produced many other millions...... How about if we just stop killing wolves all together. Farmers don't pop them and burry them for killing their livestock, and let's say there would be no more livestock. They would kill their wild prey, and when numbers of prey animals went down they would eventually kill each other, and also turn to humans. If humans didn't kill them still, they would kill more humans. Eventually humans would start to kill them again, and the rodents too. __________________________________________________ _______ [···] For a long time, people would get money for bringing in a dead wolf. This is called bounty hunting (between 1850 and 1900 more that a million wolves were killed. In 1907 the call was given for the total extinction of the species.) Famous Wolf Bounty Hunters Bill Caywood. Bill Caywood was one of dozens of hunters and trappers hired by the U.S federal government to kill wolves for the Biological Survey. Over the winter of 1912-1913, he killed 140 wolves, earning almost $7,000. Some of the famed outlaw wolves he killed were Rags the Digger, the Cuerno Verde Gray, the Butcher Wolf, and the Keystone\Pack. Most of his work was done in Colorado. [...] http://www.geocities.com/pilotwolf143/endangered.htm ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ [···] To save the wolf there may have to be a few problem wolves destroyed to save the species as a whole, there must be agreement from both the wolf conservationist and the ranchers and farmers, the alternative will be the return to the days of wolf bounty hunting. In the United States and Canada wolves are for the most part protected from unrestricted hunting, but in others countries such as Russia, and parts of eastern Europe wolf bounties are still paid. More and more wolves and man come into conflict with each other, in poor rural areas of russia for example hunting of deer and other wild game has increased causing competition between man and wolf. With less game to hunt wolves look for other food sources such as domestic sheep and cattle. [...] http://www.wolfcountry.net/informati...dangered.shtml ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ And if humans stopped killing animals altogther, it would screw up civilization as we know it. Before roads and buildings could be built all the animals would have to be removed from the area, and re-located where? The same is true with crop fields--have to vacate all animals (to where?) before plowing, planting, flooding rice fields, draining rice fields... cutting trees for wood and paper, etc...(re-locate to where?).... Everything would slow down, prices would go way up, it would change everything. >so they invent all sorts of sinister conspiracies on the >part of their opponents. > >>>Note how what they demand cannot be attained without the imposition of >>>a totalitarian government? > >Of course it can. You're projecting again. > > They are not "liberal" in anything except >>>in throwing around demands that others do as they say. > > >> Yes, that's true. > >No, it's a bunch of nonsense. > >Rat Some animals benefit from being raised by humans--even some animals raised for food and medical research--and some don't. |
|
|||
|
|||
PETA,
"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message ... > > > Rubystars wrote: > > > "Offbreed" > wrote in message > > om... > > <snip> > >> > >>If you think about what they advocate, they are pushing for the end of > >>all human/nonhuman interaction. This allows them to constantly move > >>the goalposts. > > > Yes, they don't want people to keep pets, go to zoos, or anything else that > > would allow humans to interact with animals. > > Not keeping "pets" (or actually, companion animals) is a long-term goal, > not anything that is going to happen any time soon. But this shows the > poverty of imagination non-ARAs have: you can only imagine humans > interacting with animals in ways that dominate and control them. I can > think of many ways to interact with animals on terms of mutual freedom. > So can PETA (of which I am a long-term member, since 1984). Where, exactly, do you propose these domestic animals live, if not with us? And BTW, my cat is no more controlled than my children were. In fact, she even comes and wants attention when I'm on the phone, rather like my 3 year old grandson. In point of fact, by insisting that other people follow your beliefs, aren't *you* the ones who wants control? > > They probably wish humans would > > go extinct. > > Why? Humans are an animal species, too, and worth preserving in the > right situations. > > >>With such "liberal" movements, the issue addressed is not the issue > >>actually persued. The issue actually persued is power. > > Yes the issue is power, the power of humans over other creatures. > The ultimate goal of PETA is to eliminate such power, voluntarily > give up power. The human-dominationists can't imagine such a > thing, so they invent all sorts of sinister conspiracies on the > part of their opponents. > > >>Note how what they demand cannot be attained without the imposition of > >>a totalitarian government? > > Of course it can. You're projecting again. > > They are not "liberal" in anything except > >>in throwing around demands that others do as they say. > > > > Yes, that's true. > > No, it's a bunch of nonsense. > > Rat > |
|
|||
|
|||
Sleazy PETA, gratuitously provocative and tasteless as ever
While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Rubystars of SBC
http://yahoo.sbc.com said: >These are worthy goals. PETA intends to do much more than that though, they >intend to end all animal use, not just abuse. > The big question is then where the line between use and abuse lies. I've now begun eating fish again, because my body insisted persistently, and it got to a point where I couldn't ignore it; and I feel better now (though it's a recent change), so I guess it must be some vital nutrient I was missing in my diet. I imagine it to be some of the fatty acids. Some people would consider that to be abuse, but I don't think I'm helping anyone by damaging my health, and until I find a way of making sure that I get those nutrients on a veg*n diet, I won't be on one. Keep in mind that when I decided to go veggie, I also decided that if I couldn't get enough of the right nutrients that way, I'd stop. I plan to still stick around, for recipes and such, as I still eat vegan meals most of the time, though. Some people might tell me off for this, but that's their business, and I'm not going to let them bother me. -- Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18 ICQ# 251532856 Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN "No. *Real* men eat whatever they like." Chwith (AFV) |
|
|||
|
|||
Sleazy PETA, gratuitously provocative and tasteless as ever
"MEow" > wrote in message ... > While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Rubystars of SBC > http://yahoo.sbc.com said: > > >These are worthy goals. PETA intends to do much more than that though, they > >intend to end all animal use, not just abuse. > > > The big question is then where the line between use and abuse lies. Yes, and that's where I feel the debate could be most productive, fighting hard and long for animal welfare. Look at all the energy that PETA expends on turning children against their mommies (did you see the Mommy kills animals comic?), making offensive images of Madonna and child with a dead chicken substituted for Jesus, supporting terror groups like ALF and ELF, etc. That energy would be so much better spent if they were working hard to help animals and end animal suffering. Working to try to do something about improving conditions on factory farms, making fur seem unfashionable (perhaps promoting faux instead), exposing why its a bad idea to buy wild caught pets, and why its a better idea many times to opt for captive bred ones, working for better animal cruelty laws and stiffer penalties, etc. would all be better than what they're doing now. They have done some good, but they expend so much energy on nonsense and hype and strangeness and being loud and offensive that they are diverting far too many resources from actually helping animals while making animal advocacy look like a cause full of kooks. > I've now begun eating fish again, because my body insisted > persistently, and it got to a point where I couldn't ignore it; and I > feel better now (though it's a recent change), so I guess it must be > some vital nutrient I was missing in my diet. I imagine it to be some > of the fatty acids. You need to take care of yourself first. I think anyone who says you're doing something wrong here is mistaken. > Some people would consider that to be abuse, but I don't think I'm > helping anyone by damaging my health, and until I find a way of making > sure that I get those nutrients on a veg*n diet, I won't be on one. > Keep in mind that when I decided to go veggie, I also decided that if > I couldn't get enough of the right nutrients that way, I'd stop. The best situation is if you can meet your own needs AND meet your ethical goals at the same time. Eating fish isn't cruel, IMO. As much as we hate to think of ourselves this way, humans are predators. I don't think everyone needs to eat meat (and of course there are a lot of people who have lived for a very long time very healthily without it), but some people may need to eat some... it could just be how your body chemistry is. Doctors don't even know everything there is to know about nutrition so there may be some nutrients that are hard to get without meat that people don't really know that much about yet. > I plan to still stick around, for recipes and such, as I still eat > vegan meals most of the time, though. Some people might tell me off > for this, but that's their business, and I'm not going to let them > bother me. I like to come here to alt.food.vegan to see the recipes and learn about new foods. I love to try new things and a lot of vegan foods are truly excellent. I picked up some falafel mix from Fiesta the other day and I love it! I think some of my posts have been coming over here from alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian though due to crossposting of the posts I'm replying to. I hope people don't think I'm a troll for having posted political stuff here in that way. -Rubystars |
|
|||
|
|||
PETA,
Susan Kennedy wrote: > "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message <snip> >>Not keeping "pets" (or actually, companion animals) is a long-term goal, >>not anything that is going to happen any time soon. But this shows the >>poverty of imagination non-ARAs have: you can only imagine humans >>interacting with animals in ways that dominate and control them. I can >>think of many ways to interact with animals on terms of mutual freedom. >>So can PETA (of which I am a long-term member, since 1984). > Where, exactly, do you propose these domestic animals live, if not with us? Where they please. Anytime AR people start talking about ending domestication of animals, both as "pets" and as livestock, the kind of glib question you pose here is the anti-AR retort. However anti-ARAs seldom wait for an answer. AR does not require that companion animals and livestock be shooed into the streets and abandoned; that would violate the obligation we have toward them, one which we have because we have made them helpless and dependent on us. Many breeds cannot now survive on their own; no domestic-born animal has much of a chance on his/her own, even if suitable wild habitat existed now. However, every domestic animal once had wild ancestors, animals who were perfectly capable of surviving on their own. Most domestic animals have some less overbred breeds which are close enough to the original that they could be successfully reintroduced into the wild, or if not (like, perhaps, sheep) some close wild cousin which could successfully fill the ecological niche of the domestic animal in a wild ecology (say, red sheep, Dall sheep, Barbary sheep, bighorns, and so on.) Feral cats, dogs, pigs, goats, burros, horses, etc., (semi) feral chickens, cattle, etc., show how easily many domestic animals may establish feral populations. So, the process of returning domestic animals to the wild would involve reintroducing populations to suitable habitat, helping to extend such suitable habitat, encouraging a balance of vegetable, prey, and predator species so you don't get the rabbits-in-Australia situation, and encouraging a strong ecological awareness in humans so that they curb their run-away population explosion and give the rest of the species some room to survive. As I say, it would not happen overnight. But it could certainly happen, if AR became accepted. Then all that would be required would be not to breed the domestic stock, but to let those animals live out their lives with humans in peace, and let their line end with them. > And BTW, my cat is no more controlled than my children were. In fact, she > even comes and wants attention when I'm on the phone, rather like my 3 year > old grandson. And will your grandson be neutered and kept indoors? > In point of fact, by insisting that other people follow your beliefs, aren't > *you* the ones who wants control? I present my beliefs; I do believe they are correct and others should follow them, but I do not impose them by force. Is that not true of every person with strong ethical convictions? If you believe murder is wrong, or theft is wrong, do you not "insist" that others should follow that belief? I suspect, unless you are an anarchist, you would even impose such beliefs with force ( police, Army, etc.) If I believe meat is murder, should I not try to convince others? The remarkable thing is that most ARAs do NOT try to "impose" their beliefs; they try only to persuade. <snip> Rat |
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks.
the q wrote: Snip > Giles is just an English surname, and "Farmer Giles" is an old expression > referring to any farmer still using "old fashioned" ways.. Ah -- so that's the origin of Tolkien's "Farmer Giles of Ham". Cool. Thank you. Rat |
|
|||
|
|||
PETA,
"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message <snip> > And will your grandson be neutered and kept indoors? Rat I wasn't going to say anything up until you said this. Are you opposed to neutering cats and keeping them indoors? Those are two things which are strongly in the interest of cats! -Rubystars |
|
|||
|
|||
PETA,
Rubystars wrote:
> "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message > <snip> > >> And will your grandson be neutered and kept indoors? > > > Rat I wasn't going to say anything up until you said this. Are you opposed > to neutering cats and keeping them indoors? Those are two things which are > strongly in the interest of cats! You have to understand something, something that's crucial to figuring out "aras". They have a rigid, all-encompassing view of the human-animal relationship continuum. They will strive at all times to remain consistent with their fundamental view: that human use of animals is evil. What they don't get, and never will, is that they continually prove the truth of Emerson's observation: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." If it weren't already obvious that believers in "ar" have small minds, this kind of foolish consistency should make it clear. |
|
|||
|
|||
Sleazy PETA, gratuitously provocative and tasteless as ever
"Rubystars" > wrote in message m>...
> "Offbreed" > wrote in message > om... > > If you think about what they advocate, they are pushing for the end of > > all human/nonhuman interaction. This allows them to constantly move > > the goalposts. > > Yes, they don't want people to keep pets, go to zoos, or anything else that > would allow humans to interact with animals. They probably wish humans would > go extinct. I think some of their supporters are involved with the human extinction movement. I seldom help any sort of "improvement movement", but, in this case, I might see my way to provide assistance to certain volunteers. <G> |
|
|||
|
|||
PETA,
Rat & Swan wrote:
> > > Susan Kennedy wrote: > >> "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message > > > <snip> > >>> Not keeping "pets" (or actually, companion animals) is a long-term goal, >>> not anything that is going to happen any time soon. But this shows the >>> poverty of imagination non-ARAs have: you can only imagine humans >>> interacting with animals in ways that dominate and control them. I can >>> think of many ways to interact with animals on terms of mutual freedom. >>> So can PETA (of which I am a long-term member, since 1984). > > >> Where, exactly, do you propose these domestic animals live, if not >> with us? > > > Where they please. > > Anytime AR people start talking about ending domestication of animals, > both as "pets" and as livestock, the kind of glib question you pose > here is the anti-AR retort. There's nothing glib about it, bitch, and you know it. In fact, the question absolutely ****S you. >> And BTW, my cat is no more controlled than my children were. In fact, she >> even comes and wants attention when I'm on the phone, rather like my 3 year >> old grandson. > >> In point of fact, by insisting that other people follow your beliefs, >> aren't *you* the ones who wants control? > > > I present my beliefs; I do believe they are correct Solipsistically. > and others should follow them, Of course! You are a fascist at heart. > but I do not impose them by force. Only because you don't have the means. You are a fascist at heart. When you try to impose your beliefs by force, as you necessarily must do, I will shoot you dead. |
|
|||
|
|||
PETA,
Rubystars wrote: > "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message > <snip> >> And will your grandson be neutered and kept indoors? > Rat I wasn't going to say anything up until you said this. Are you opposed > to neutering cats and keeping them indoors? While they are companion animals? No. I strongly recommend it. > Those are two things which are > strongly in the interest of cats! I agree -- the interest of cats kept as pets. They are not in the interest of cats who are free. The poster claimed her cats were no more controlled than her children. I doubt this very much, if for no other reason than, in most cases, human children grow up, leave home, and develop lives of their own. The basic wrong, in the AR concept, in keeping (and breeding or neutering ) cats and other pets is that we have made them permanent dependents -- whether as slaves or food or pseudo-"children". Obviously, the well-cared-for (not pampered ) pet, or even better, companion animal, will have a much better life and welfare than a battery-cage hen, a calf in a veal crate, or a fighting dog. That is good for that pet. But he/she has a better life _at the whim of his/her owner_. The owner could as easily have abused or neglected him/her -- any episode of _Animal Precinct_ or _Animal Cops_ ( or a stint in rescue ) will show how bad it can get. What ARAs believe is that the basic master/pet relationship is morally wrong. The life of the animal should not belong to the master -- even the kind master. The animal should own his own life. That does not mean the human cannot have a relationship with the animal -- something like Jane Goodall's friendship with her chimpanzees or the relationships in _Never Cry Wolf_. Those people didn't just observe at a distance; they touched and interacted with the animals -- but they did not control them. Humans who go to places (like the Galapagos Islands when they were first discovered) where the animals have not had contact with humans before, are often amazed that the animals do not fear them and run from them. Fear of humans is a learned behavior in wild animals. Not that we will live in a Disney world or a Dr. Doolittle world. But we can have a much more friend-like relationship with animals who are neither our prey nor our possessions. Rat |
|
|||
|
|||
PETA,
Jonathan Ball wrote: <snip> > You have to understand something, something that's crucial to figuring > out "aras". They have a rigid, all-encompassing view of the > human-animal relationship continuum. They will strive at all times to > remain consistent with their fundamental view: that human use of > animals is evil. What they don't get, and never will, is that they > continually prove the truth of Emerson's observation: "A foolish > consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." And if you read what I said to Rubystars on the subject, it will be obvious that, as always, you are again wrong about me. You might as well give up, jonnie. You'll never get it. Rat <snip> |
|
|||
|
|||
PETA,
Fredrick L. Rice wrote: <snip> >>> Where, exactly, do you propose these domestic animals live, if not >>> with us? >> Where they please. >> Anytime AR people start talking about ending domestication of animals, >> both as "pets" and as livestock, the kind of glib question you pose >> here is the anti-AR retort. > There's nothing glib about it, bitch, and you know it. In fact, the > question absolutely ****S you. So -- do you have any rational response to my answer to the question? <snip> Rat |
|
|||
|
|||
PETA
Offered wrote: <Snip> > I think some of their supporters are involved with the human > extinction movement. Why should those in favor of animal rights wish any species to go extinct? Humans are animals, too, and deserve no less concern than other animals -- but (as a species) no more. Rat |
|
|||
|
|||
PETA,
"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message ... > > > Susan Kennedy wrote: > > > "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message > > <snip> > >>Not keeping "pets" (or actually, companion animals) is a long-term goal, > >>not anything that is going to happen any time soon. But this shows the > >>poverty of imagination non-ARAs have: you can only imagine humans > >>interacting with animals in ways that dominate and control them. I can > >>think of many ways to interact with animals on terms of mutual freedom. > >>So can PETA (of which I am a long-term member, since 1984). > > > Where, exactly, do you propose these domestic animals live, if not with us? > > Where they please. > > Anytime AR people start talking about ending domestication of animals, > both as "pets" and as livestock, the kind of glib question you pose > here is the anti-AR retort. However anti-ARAs seldom wait for an Hey, give me a break. I'm totally new to this particular argument. All I know about PeTA is what I read in the papers, and I live in a rural area. Believe me, around here, it does not get good press. In fact, most of the time, they sound like fools, and it's hard to tell how much of that is them, and how much is the press. > answer. AR does not require that companion animals and livestock be > shooed into the streets and abandoned; that would violate the obligation > we have toward them, one which we have because we have made them > helpless and dependent on us. Many breeds cannot now survive on their > own; no domestic-born animal has much of a chance on his/her own, even > if suitable wild habitat existed now. However, every domestic animal > once had wild ancestors, animals who were perfectly capable of > surviving on their own. Most domestic animals have some less overbred > breeds which are close enough to the original that they could be > successfully reintroduced into the wild, or if not (like, perhaps, > sheep) some close wild cousin which could successfully fill the > ecological niche of the domestic animal in a wild ecology (say, red > sheep, Dall sheep, Barbary sheep, bighorns, and so on.) Feral cats, > dogs, pigs, goats, burros, horses, etc., (semi) feral chickens, > cattle, etc., show how easily many domestic animals may establish > feral populations. So, the process of returning domestic animals Ok, now you're contradicting yourself. First you tell me that we've made them totally dependent on us, then you start talking about feral animals and how they prove most domesticated species could easily be reintroduced to the wild. Or do you really think feral cats and dogs are actually wild animals? They're not. They are dogs and cats that have been mistreated and dumped in the wild. They survive because they are still equipped to do so. In fact, dogs dumped in the same area have been known to pack and even interbreed with coyotes, and become a real problem for farmers because they aren't afraid of humans. At any rate, you can't have it both ways. Either they are totally dependent on us, or they aren't. > to the wild would involve reintroducing populations to suitable > habitat, helping to extend such suitable habitat, encouraging a > balance of vegetable, prey, and predator species so you don't get > the rabbits-in-Australia situation, and encouraging a strong > ecological awareness in humans so that they curb their run-away > population explosion and give the rest of the species some room to > survive. As I say, it would not happen overnight. But it could > certainly happen, if AR became accepted. Then all that would be > required would be not to breed the domestic stock, but to let those > animals live out their lives with humans in peace, and let their > line end with them. Personally, I don't see that AR will ever become that accepted. First of all, if you're going to give them rights - you have to include the right to breed. And that means the last part never happens. Second, if animals can choose, many of them will choose to continue to live with humans, because pets are not just something that belongs to you. They are friends in ways people who have never had one cannot understand. > > > And BTW, my cat is no more controlled than my children were. In fact, she > > even comes and wants attention when I'm on the phone, rather like my 3 year > > old grandson. > > And will your grandson be neutered and kept indoors? You miss the point. If I were to let my cat do whatever she wanted, she would have been dead years ago, much as my three year old grandson would be dead if his mother let him do whatever he wanted. The world is a complicated and dangerous place. And if she weren't neutered, I'd be up to my ears in kittens I didn't want and would have to find homes for. Of course, I could let them go wild, but the county would likely frown on that. :P And that's if they lived. > > > In point of fact, by insisting that other people follow your beliefs, aren't > > *you* the ones who wants control? > > I present my beliefs; I do believe they are correct and others should > follow them, but I do not impose them by force. Is that not true of > every person with strong ethical convictions? If you believe murder is > wrong, or theft is wrong, do you not "insist" that others should > follow that belief? I suspect, unless you are an anarchist, you would > even impose such beliefs with force ( police, Army, etc.) If I believe > meat is murder, should I not try to convince others? The remarkable > thing is that most ARAs do NOT try to "impose" their beliefs; they try > only to persuade. > > <snip> > Rat > |
|
|||
|
|||
PETA,
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message hlink.net... > Rubystars wrote: > > > "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message > > <snip> > > > >> And will your grandson be neutered and kept indoors? > > > > > > Rat I wasn't going to say anything up until you said this. Are you opposed > > to neutering cats and keeping them indoors? Those are two things which are > > strongly in the interest of cats! > > You have to understand something, something that's > crucial to figuring out "aras". They have a rigid, > all-encompassing view of the human-animal relationship > continuum. They will strive at all times to remain > consistent with their fundamental view: that human use > of animals is evil. What they don't get, and never > will, is that they continually prove the truth of > Emerson's observation: "A foolish consistency is the > hobgoblin of little minds." > > If it weren't already obvious that believers in "ar" > have small minds, this kind of foolish consistency > should make it clear. > I'm more under the impression that they are anthropomorphizing. Rat seems to think animals are a lot more intelligent and capable than they are. Perhaps they mistake cunning for intelligence, I don't know. I do know I am an unashamed omnivore, just like a good many animals are. |
|
|||
|
|||
PETA
"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message ... > > > Offered wrote: > > <Snip> > > > I think some of their supporters are involved with the human > > extinction movement. > > Why should those in favor of animal rights wish any species to > go extinct? Humans are animals, too, and deserve no less > concern than other animals -- but (as a species) no more. > > Rat Animals, when left alone, eat or are eaten, dominate or are dominated. You're definitely telling us we are not animals when you tell us we don't have the right to do to animals what they do to each other. |
|
|||
|
|||
PETA,
"Susan Kennedy" > wrote in message ... > > "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message snippage... > > Personally, I don't see that AR will ever become that accepted. -------------- She knows that too. It's just that she can't help herself with her knee-jerk spews. There wouldn't be crops, power, gas, transportation, heating, any number of things in the world if animals had rights. Afterall, you wouldn't be able to plow them under or poison them to keep your food clean and cheap, or process them for storage and shipment. Her own usenet spews contribute to the death and suffering of animals, yet here she is, continueing for nothing more than her entertainment. snippage... |
|
|||
|
|||
PETA,
"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message ... > > > Rubystars wrote: > > "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message > > <snip> > > >> And will your grandson be neutered and kept indoors? > > > Rat I wasn't going to say anything up until you said this. Are you opposed > > to neutering cats and keeping them indoors? > > While they are companion animals? No. I strongly recommend it. > > > Those are two things which are > > strongly in the interest of cats! > > I agree -- the interest of cats kept as pets. They are not in the > interest of cats who are free. > > The poster claimed her cats were no more controlled than her > children. I doubt this very much, if for no other reason than, in > most cases, human children grow up, leave home, and develop lives > of their own. The basic wrong, in the AR concept, in keeping This is exactly the problem. Cat, dogs, domestic animals, have the intelligence of a small child. So do wild animals. They don't know to look both ways before crossing the street until they are hit by a car - and by that time, it's too late for most of them, even if they are intelligent enough to learn. Are you also advocating that we give up cars, tractors, and other vehicles, or lower the speed limit to about 10 miles an hour so ignorant animals have time to get out of the way? > (and breeding or neutering ) cats and other pets is that we have > made them permanent dependents -- whether as slaves or food or > pseudo-"children". Obviously, the well-cared-for (not pampered ) > pet, or even better, companion animal, will have a much better life > and welfare than a battery-cage hen, a calf in a veal crate, or > a fighting dog. That is good for that pet. But he/she has a better > life _at the whim of his/her owner_. The owner could as easily have Now this part I agree with. Ask any farmer what happens when an owner decides he or she doesn't want a pet anymore. Many of them have had to shoot those feral dogs you talked about in our converstation because they were killing livestock and would not hesitate to go after small children either. Farmers often find dogs, cats, pet rabbits, etc., who have been dumped near their farmhouses on the (false) theory that the farmer has the time and money to find them and will take care of them. I just do not think your solution is one. > abused or neglected him/her -- any episode of _Animal Precinct_ or > _Animal Cops_ ( or a stint in rescue ) will show how bad it can get. > > What ARAs believe is that the basic master/pet relationship is > morally wrong. The life of the animal should not belong to the > master -- even the kind master. The animal should own his own life. Animals do no own their lives in the wild, and if you think they do, you need to watch some nature shows about predators. > That does not mean the human cannot have a relationship with the > animal -- something like Jane Goodall's friendship with her > chimpanzees or the relationships in _Never Cry Wolf_. Those people > didn't just observe at a distance; they touched and interacted with > the animals -- but they did not control them. Humans who go to places > (like the Galapagos Islands when they were first discovered) where > the animals have not had contact with humans before, are often amazed > that the animals do not fear them and run from them. Fear of humans > is a learned behavior in wild animals. Not that we will live in a > Disney world or a Dr. Doolittle world. But we can have a much more > friend-like relationship with animals who are neither our prey nor > our possessions. What you choose to ignore is that 1: the human animal is by nature a predator itself. and 2: there are plenty of other predators in the world who would not hesitate to eat us as well as their other prey. In the animal world, you're predator, or you're prey. Everything that lives, eats something, and some animals just naturally eat other animals. It's the way of the world. > |
|
|||
|
|||
PETA,
"Fredrick L. Rice" > wrote in message link.net... > Rat & Swan wrote: > > > > > > > Susan Kennedy wrote: > > > >> "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message > > > > > > <snip> > > > >>> Not keeping "pets" (or actually, companion animals) is a long-term goal, > >>> not anything that is going to happen any time soon. But this shows the > >>> poverty of imagination non-ARAs have: you can only imagine humans > >>> interacting with animals in ways that dominate and control them. I can > >>> think of many ways to interact with animals on terms of mutual freedom. > >>> So can PETA (of which I am a long-term member, since 1984). > > > > > >> Where, exactly, do you propose these domestic animals live, if not > >> with us? > > > > > > Where they please. > > > > Anytime AR people start talking about ending domestication of animals, > > both as "pets" and as livestock, the kind of glib question you pose > > here is the anti-AR retort. > > There's nothing glib about it, bitch, and you know it. > In fact, the question absolutely ****S you. Question: I'm not upset about it, and she said it to me. Why are you so upset about it? > >> And BTW, my cat is no more controlled than my children were. In fact, she > >> even comes and wants attention when I'm on the phone, rather like my 3 year > >> old grandson. > > > >> In point of fact, by insisting that other people follow your beliefs, > >> aren't *you* the ones who wants control? > > > > > > I present my beliefs; I do believe they are correct > > Solipsistically. > > > and others should follow them, > > Of course! You are a fascist at heart. > > > but I do not impose them by force. > > Only because you don't have the means. > > You are a fascist at heart. When you try to impose > your beliefs by force, as you necessarily must do, I > will shoot you dead. > |
|
|||
|
|||
PETA,
"rick etter" > wrote in message ... > > "Susan Kennedy" > wrote in message > ... > > > > "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message > > snippage... > > > > > Personally, I don't see that AR will ever become that accepted. > -------------- > She knows that too. It's just that she can't help herself with her > knee-jerk spews. > There wouldn't be crops, power, gas, transportation, heating, any number of > things in the world if animals had rights. > Afterall, you wouldn't be able to plow them under or poison them to keep > your food clean and cheap, or process them for storage and shipment. > Her own usenet spews contribute to the death and suffering of animals, yet > here she is, continueing for nothing more than her entertainment. Much as I hate to say it, you're reactions sound pretty knee-jerk to me. Not that I don't agree with some of what you say, but I really gotta say - if I were on the fence, the way you say it would likely push me over on her side, even if only temporarily. |
|
|||
|
|||
PETA,
Susan Kennedy wrote: > "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message > ... <snip> >>>Where, exactly, do you propose these domestic animals live, if not with > us? >>Where they please. >>Anytime AR people start talking about ending domestication of animals, >>both as "pets" and as livestock, the kind of glib question you pose >>here is the anti-AR retort. However anti-ARAs seldom wait for an > Hey, give me a break. I'm totally new to this particular argument. I'm sorry. I apologize. > All I > know about PeTA is what I read in the papers, and I live in a rural area. > Believe me, around here, it does not get good press. In fact, most of the > time, they sound like fools, and it's hard to tell how much of that is them, > and how much is the press. It's a little of both. PETA is a high-profile sort of guerrilla -theater group given to the snappy slogan and flamboyant gesture, not the calm, reasoned argument. I don't get my philosophical ideas from PETA, but from other, more philosophical writers. But PETA lives by the theory that any publicity is good publicity, and at least gets people talking about their ideas. Then, if people are intrigued by ladies dressed up in lettuce-leaves or tofu-cream pies tossed at fur models, they may be introduced to the background behind such stunts and go further with the ideas. PETA does do some real good actions, such as organizing rescue of pound dogs in Puerto Rico, or helping the SPCA rescue animals after a big flood, or helping place chickens rescued after a company went out of business and left a barn-full of chickens to starve. I give to other organizations, too, like Farm Sanctuary and my local humane society, and have worked in animal rescue. <snip> > Ok, now you're contradicting yourself. First you tell me that we've made > them totally dependent on us, then you start talking about feral animals and > how they prove most domesticated species could easily be reintroduced to the > wild. Pets are pretty much totally dependent on us, as are highly-bred livestock like dairy cattle and domestic turkeys. But the species they come from can become feral. > Or do you really think feral cats and dogs are actually wild animals? Genuine feral animals are wild -- they are the offspring of formerly- domesticated animals born and raised in the wild. Animals who have been dumped and abandoned are strays, not ferals. You can find genuine ferals like mustang horses, feral cats and rabbits in Australia, feral goats and wild pigs (as in California in some areas) and so on. > They're not. They are dogs and cats that have been mistreated and dumped in > the wild. They survive because they are still equipped to do so. In fact, > dogs dumped in the same area have been known to pack and even interbreed > with coyotes, and become a real problem for farmers because they aren't > afraid of humans. Yes. > At any rate, you can't have it both ways. Either they are totally dependent > on us, or they aren't. Some individuals are, some are not. >>to the wild would involve reintroducing populations to suitable >>habitat, helping to extend such suitable habitat, encouraging a >>balance of vegetable, prey, and predator species so you don't get >>the rabbits-in-Australia situation, and encouraging a strong >>ecological awareness in humans so that they curb their run-away >>population explosion and give the rest of the species some room to >>survive. As I say, it would not happen overnight. But it could >>certainly happen, if AR became accepted. Then all that would be >>required would be not to breed the domestic stock, but to let those >>animals live out their lives with humans in peace, and let their >>line end with them. > Personally, I don't see that AR will ever become that accepted. First of > all, if you're going to give them rights - you have to include the right to > breed. Yes, eventually. And that means the last part never happens. Second, if animals can > choose, many of them will choose to continue to live with humans, because > pets are not just something that belongs to you. They are friends in ways > people who have never had one cannot understand. I understand -- but while people love pets and sometimes treat them like 3 year old children, children are not ( I hope ) "friends" -- they are children. Friends are equals; pets are never equals. >>>And BTW, my cat is no more controlled than my children were. In fact, > she even comes and wants attention when I'm on the phone, rather like my 3 > year old grandson. >> And will your grandson be neutered and kept indoors? > You miss the point. No -- that IS the point. > If I were to let my cat do whatever she wanted, she > would have been dead years ago, much as my three year old grandson would be > dead if his mother let him do whatever he wanted. The world is a > complicated and dangerous place. Yes, I agree. I have neutered my own companion animals, and encourage others to neuter theirs. But I wouldn't neuter my friends, even if I had the power to do so. > And if she weren't neutered, I'd be up to my ears in kittens I didn't want > and would have to find homes for. Of course, I could let them go wild, but > the county would likely frown on that. :P And that's if they lived. Yes. In the wild, cubs, kittens, pups and so on usually die in proportion to keep the population _relatively_ in balance with the food supply over the long term. Either the species has some form of social population control like wolves, or many of the young die (as with lions ). <snip> Rat |
|
|||
|
|||
Thank You, Susan!
Susan Kennedy wrote: > Much as I hate to say it, you're reactions sound pretty knee-jerk to me. > Not that I don't agree with some of what you say, but I really gotta say - > if I were on the fence, the way you say it would likely push me over on her > side, even if only temporarily. Thanks. That kind of response by etter is why I reacted so harshly to you. It's rare to get a reasonable opponent on the group I post on (talk.politics.animals). I like talking without nasty attacks, even with people who don't agree with me. Let's hope we can continue. Rat |
|
|||
|
|||
PETA,
Rat & Swan wrote:
> > > Jonathan Ball wrote: > > <snip> > >> You have to understand something, something that's crucial to figuring >> out "aras". They have a rigid, all-encompassing view of the >> human-animal relationship continuum. They will strive at all times to >> remain consistent with their fundamental view: that human use of >> animals is evil. What they don't get, and never will, is that they >> continually prove the truth of Emerson's observation: "A foolish >> consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." > > > And if you read what I said to Rubystars on the subject, it will be > obvious that, as always, you are again wrong about me. I am 100% right about you. You exhibit EXACTLY the foolish consistency against which Emerson railed. > > You'll never get it. Oh, I get you completely. There isn't much to get. |
|
|||
|
|||
PETA,
"Susan Kennedy" > wrote in message ... > > "rick etter" > wrote in message > ... > > > > "Susan Kennedy" > wrote in message > > ... > > > > > > "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message > > > > snippage... > > > > > > > > Personally, I don't see that AR will ever become that accepted. > > -------------- > > She knows that too. It's just that she can't help herself with her > > knee-jerk spews. > > There wouldn't be crops, power, gas, transportation, heating, any number > of > > things in the world if animals had rights. > > Afterall, you wouldn't be able to plow them under or poison them to keep > > your food clean and cheap, or process them for storage and shipment. > > Her own usenet spews contribute to the death and suffering of animals, yet > > here she is, continueing for nothing more than her entertainment. > > Much as I hate to say it, you're reactions sound pretty knee-jerk to me. > Not that I don't agree with some of what you say, but I really gotta say - > if I were on the fence, the way you say it would likely push me over on her > side, even if only temporarily. ================== That's the point. her side is bogus, and she knows it. Winning a miss-congeniality isn't my thing. Pointing out her lys and delusions is. btw, she also supports *** sex with young boys. She has no problem with nambla, and even supports them. Animals she'll say she protects, yet she can't bring herself to condemn queers that prey on little boys. Her whole belief system is so skewed as to be irrelevant. > > |
|
|||
|
|||
Thank You, Susan!
"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message ... > > > Susan Kennedy wrote: > > > Much as I hate to say it, you're reactions sound pretty knee-jerk to me. > > Not that I don't agree with some of what you say, but I really gotta say - > > if I were on the fence, the way you say it would likely push me over on her > > side, even if only temporarily. > > Thanks. That kind of response by etter is why I reacted so harshly > to you. ==================== What, the truth is too hard for you to take now? Refute what I said then. You never have, and never will be able to. You do nothing to support, defend, or uphold the rights you claim animals have! Unlike you, I've never used profanity in any of my posts. It's rare to get a reasonable opponent on the group I post > on (talk.politics.animals). I like talking without nasty attacks, > even with people who don't agree with me. Let's hope we can continue. ================== Hey, I don't get nasty with you, unless of cousre you find the truth to be nasty. Well, maybe you do, since you rarely visit reality. > > Rat > |
|
|||
|
|||
PETA,
"Susan Kennedy" > wrote in message ... > snippage... > Question: I'm not upset about it, and she said it to me. Why are you so > upset about it? ============= Usenet is not a one on one conversation. It's an open forum where anybodys posts can, and will, be addressed. You'll get used to it. If you don't like what some people say, you can always take the easy path and killfile people. Of course, then you run the risk of only seeing those that you agree with. snippage... |
|
|||
|
|||
PETA,
Susan Kennedy wrote: <snip> > This is exactly the problem. Cat, dogs, domestic animals, have the > intelligence of a small child. So do wild animals. Animals vary tremendously in intelligence. Some, like some parrots, really do have the intelligence of small human children on human-style intelligence tests, but from my experience with animals, their ways of interacting with the world are so different from humans', it's hard to compare one-to-one with any particular stage of human development. > They don't know to look > both ways before crossing the street until they are hit by a car - and by > that time, it's too late for most of them, even if they are intelligent > enough to learn. Are you also advocating that we give up cars, tractors, > and other vehicles, or lower the speed limit to about 10 miles an hour so > ignorant animals have time to get out of the way? No. I wouldn't suggest ignoring animals in your headlights, but part of owning one's own life is to take one's own risks. >>(and breeding or neutering ) cats and other pets is that we have >>made them permanent dependents -- whether as slaves or food or >>pseudo-"children". Obviously, the well-cared-for (not pampered ) >>pet, or even better, companion animal, will have a much better life >>and welfare than a battery-cage hen, a calf in a veal crate, or >>a fighting dog. That is good for that pet. But he/she has a better >>life _at the whim of his/her owner_. The owner could as easily have > Now this part I agree with. Ask any farmer what happens when an owner > decides he or she doesn't want a pet anymore. Many of them have had to > shoot those feral dogs you talked about in our converstation because they > were killing livestock and would not hesitate to go after small children > either. Farmers often find dogs, cats, pet rabbits, etc., who have been > dumped near their farmhouses on the (false) theory that the farmer has the > time and money to find them and will take care of them. I just do not think > your solution is one. >>abused or neglected him/her -- any episode of _Animal Precinct_ or >>_Animal Cops_ ( or a stint in rescue ) will show how bad it can get. >>What ARAs believe is that the basic master/pet relationship is >>morally wrong. The life of the animal should not belong to the >>master -- even the kind master. The animal should own his own life. > Animals do no own their lives in the wild, and if you think they do, you > need to watch some nature shows about predators. I do think animals own their own lives in the wild. That does not mean they don't face dangers of predation, starvation, dominance fights, and so on. But think about it -- humans do, too, both within our own society, and interacting with non-humans. A human getting shot or arrested for trespassing is like an animal being driven out of another animal's territory; a low-status animal being picked on by a higher-status animal or driven out of the group is like a human being fired or mugged; a human being eaten by a tiger or crocodile is like a rabbit being eaten by a predator. But those situations are a lot different from a human held as a slave, or a little child controlled by parents -- when a human really doesn't own his own life. >>That does not mean the human cannot have a relationship with the >>animal -- something like Jane Goodall's friendship with her >>chimpanzees or the relationships in _Never Cry Wolf_. Those people >>didn't just observe at a distance; they touched and interacted with >>the animals -- but they did not control them. Humans who go to places >>(like the Galapagos Islands when they were first discovered) where >>the animals have not had contact with humans before, are often amazed >>that the animals do not fear them and run from them. Fear of humans >>is a learned behavior in wild animals. Not that we will live in a >>Disney world or a Dr. Doolittle world. But we can have a much more >>friend-like relationship with animals who are neither our prey nor >>our possessions. > What you choose to ignore is that 1: the human animal is by nature a > predator itself. Yes, to a degree. But we don't have to live as predators. We are not (under good conditions) predators over our pets, or many wild animals. Humans can live in other ways; we are not obligate carnivores. and 2: there are plenty of other predators in the world > who would not hesitate to eat us as well as their other prey. Certainly. > In the animal world, you're predator, or you're prey. Everything that > lives, eats something, and some animals just naturally eat other animals. > It's the way of the world. But many animals do not eat other animals. Humans are unusual in the animal kingdom in that they can control their own behavior and environment in such ways that they can live as herbivores, not omnivores. That does not mean animals will not die as a result of human actions. But we can do much more to respect animals and treat them as beings with certain very basic rights than we do. Rat |
|
|||
|
|||
PETA,
"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message ... > > > Rubystars wrote: > > "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message > > <snip> > > >> And will your grandson be neutered and kept indoors? > > > Rat I wasn't going to say anything up until you said this. Are you opposed > > to neutering cats and keeping them indoors? > > While they are companion animals? No. I strongly recommend it. > > > Those are two things which are > > strongly in the interest of cats! > > I agree -- the interest of cats kept as pets. They are not in the > interest of cats who are free. Here's something to ponder though. There's likely to be pet cats (and other pets) long after all of us are dead. So would you do more good by saying that people shouldn't breed and keep cats, or would you do more good by promoting spay/neuter programs and education as well as promoting indoor cats? > The poster claimed her cats were no more controlled than her > children. I doubt this very much, if for no other reason than, in > most cases, human children grow up, leave home, and develop lives > of their own. The basic wrong, in the AR concept, in keeping > (and breeding or neutering ) cats and other pets is that we have > made them permanent dependents -- whether as slaves or food or > pseudo-"children". Cats are more independent, but there are other animals, such as dogs and parrots, which live life in the wild as part of a group. Why is it wrong to make them part of our family (or pack or flock, as the case may be)? >Obviously, the well-cared-for (not pampered ) > pet, or even better, companion animal, will have a much better life > and welfare than a battery-cage hen, a calf in a veal crate, or > a fighting dog. That is good for that pet. But he/she has a better > life _at the whim of his/her owner_. The owner could as easily have > abused or neglected him/her -- any episode of _Animal Precinct_ or > _Animal Cops_ ( or a stint in rescue ) will show how bad it can get. I believe that there are many people who don't deserve or need to have pets just as there are many people who don't deserve or need to have children, but I'm not promoting a banishment of sex to prevent the latter. Neither do I promote abolishing the pet trade entirely. There are good and bad sides to both. I really think that things could be improved if there was greater public awareness about the nature of animals. For example one episode of that show had a dog rescued by the agents that had suffered from being burned (apparently by accident) with cooking oil. The lady who had owned the dog said something about "I don't know nothing about no dog burns." The agents had to explain that the dog felt the same kind of pain she would feel if she were burned like that. It seems so basic, but so many people are just plain ignorant, and treat animals as if they have no feelings. Maybe these kind of situations would happen less often if people were better educated. This is where zoos come in, and other institutions that teach people about animals and allow some interaction. Shows like the ones you mentioned also help. > What ARAs believe is that the basic master/pet relationship is > morally wrong. The life of the animal should not belong to the > master -- even the kind master. The thing that I don't understand about this is that many animals live longer and healthier lives in captivity. I doubt that wild wolves generally live to be 13-15 years old, but domestic dogs do. They receive a consistent supply of food, water, shelter, and hopefully love. They get taken to the vet when they get sick or injured instead of suffering without help for days on end or slowly dying as would a wild animal. Even if an owner can't afford to cure a disease suffered by the animal, being put down by the vet is a much kinder way to go than what would happen if the problem (like a twisted stomach) was simply left to progress on its own. > The animal should own his own life. > That does not mean the human cannot have a relationship with the > animal -- something like Jane Goodall's friendship with her > chimpanzees or the relationships in _Never Cry Wolf_. Those people > didn't just observe at a distance; they touched and interacted with > the animals -- but they did not control them. Though you have to admit, any contact with animals poses some risk to both the animals and to the humans. One may accidentally hurt them. For example, many of the diseases that affect humans also affect chimpanzees, and vice versa. What if an infected human was playing with a wild chimp and sneezed on them by accident? The chimp might die of the flu. Almost any reptile carries the risk of salmonella, etc. Parasites (like fleas) might pass from animal to animal by hitching a ride on a human, etc. So you see if you really want to eliminate humanity's impact upon animals, you have to cut off all contact. > Humans who go to places > (like the Galapagos Islands when they were first discovered) where > the animals have not had contact with humans before, are often amazed > that the animals do not fear them and run from them. Fear of humans > is a learned behavior in wild animals. Animal populations that were around hominids may have developed a fear of the upright walking creatures before "humans" even existed, and the fear may be instinctual now in some of those species. However I think you're right that most animals have learned fear of humans. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. If an animal doesn't run away from someone like you or I, they might not run away from someone who does wish them harm. I've heard on tv that one of the things that's so hard about raising orphaned animals for re-release is not to let them get to trust humans too well, because if a deer for example doesn't run when it sees/smells humans, they'll be in big trouble. >Not that we will live in a > Disney world or a Dr. Doolittle world. But we can have a much more > friend-like relationship with animals who are neither our prey nor > our possessions. That would be a Disney or Dr. Doolittle world, because even if the AR movement had great success and a vast majority of governments and societies were following the policies laid out by it, then there would still be individuals and groups who both used and abused animals. -Rubystars |
|
|||
|
|||
PETA,
Susan Kennedy wrote:
> > "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message > (snip) > Where, exactly, do you propose these domestic animals live, if not > with us? > ARAs aren't suggesting domestic animals be let loose to fend for themselves nor do they intend to raid homes and farms slaughtering companion and farm animals. A phase out is the usual proposal and would be relatively quick if all breeding of domestic species ended. Most males of domestic livestock are already castrated so, since food animals are under strict human control, it would not be that difficult to castrate all of them. The best case scenario would have livestock pastured for the remainder of their natural lifespans, sheltered and supplementally fed, if necessary, by the same farmers who have been making money off them, their offspring, their mothers, fathers, grandmothers, grandfathers, great grandmothers, great grandfathers, etc. The animals would cash out their profit-sharing. We all know that won't happen, so, sadly, existing livestock would probably have to be slaughtered as scheduled. Without replacements in the pipeline, chickens would be gone in months, furbearers and hogs in a year to a hear and a half, cattle in two to four. Phasing out companion animals could follow the same pattern, except large populations of feral cats and dogs would make spaying female "pets", instead of males, more effective. Existing feral populations could be managed as they are now, spay/neuter/release followed by lifetime care until attrition takes the last of them or they could be left alone and unaltered with the inevitable winnowing of those less suited to an independent life among human and non-human enemies. Eventually, truly wild strains of formerly domestic species would be distilled from feral populations. > And BTW, my cat is no more controlled than my children were. > In fact, she even comes and wants attention when I'm on the phone, > rather like my 3 year old grandson. Unlike your 3 year old grandson, you are free to euthanize your cat when its bid for attention becomes too annoying. Humans think it's cute to say we are slaves to our companion animals, but it's not. The fact is we exercise ultimate control over every facet of the life and death of our "pets". If they rebel, they are "unmanageable" and we euthanize them, surrender them, abandon them or tether them in the yard. > In point of fact, by insisting that other people follow your beliefs, > aren't *you* the ones who wants control? As Rat says elsewhere, persuasion is the only certain way to secure rights for animals. No law in the world is capable of enforcing humility, generosity, concern or genuine respect for anybody or anything. The only thing laws can do and should do is better regulate the way humans treat the animals we use. I know there is a danger in codifying the unjust status of animals as property. A well regulated system of exploitation is still exploitation, but, food and fiber animals need relief now and it would take a cold-hearted rightist to reject welfare reform that offered real and enforceable improvements for farm animals. most of which are living and dying in intensive production systems. There are no national standards set for the housing and care of food and fiber animals. Many state anti-cruelty statutes have an exemption for farming. A simple rule (species specific) governing the number of animals per acre would be a great place to start. > (snip) |
|
|||
|
|||
Give me a break!
> Face it, lady, small livestock producers can't out compete corporate > farms for cheap meat. *** Uh...... No kidding, I think that's exatly what I said. That's not the fault of vegans. *** It is a direct result of lower prices recieved by the farmer. Consumers eating less animal products, thus less demand is what created "factory farms" and is putting the small farmer out of business. The information / disinformation put out by the vegan / animal rights types contribute to this. You can either > cave in and do contract work for the packers or you can go for the niche > market of humanely-raised, pastured livestock. *** We have a dairy farm and raise crops so obviously the contract is not an option for us. We have ben using controlled grazing since we started farming. Vegans / animal rights types want to see farms like ours out of business and have targeted farms like ours first. Have you certified your > farm with the Humane Farming Association? *** No of course not. After looking into it we decided it was not for us. We decided on certified organic instead. Seems most consumers of organic products think that "organic" means humane. Kala Thompson Farmer -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
|
|||
|
|||
PETA
Rick wrote: <snip> >Fanatics can not be swayed by reasoned discourse. Talking about yourself here, I assume.... Rat |
|
|||
|
|||
PETA
Rat & Swan wrote:
> > > Rick wrote: > > <snip> > >> Fanatics can not be swayed by reasoned discourse. > > > Talking about yourself here, I assume.... No, Rick is talking about "aras", one of the first examples of fanatics one thinks of in the United States. "aras" cannot be swayed by reasonsed discourse, because they are incapable of reason. |
|
|||
|
|||
PETA, --Rescue never ends....
Hey Feral -- Yep, they find you, don't they? Here I am in New Mexico, thinking about where I want to start working with critters, and I'm out feeding the birds along the arroyo, and a guy in a passing car stops to talk to me. Turns out he has a friend who is taking care of a paraplegic bunny, who needs help caring for the rabbit -- so I'm going over to talk to her next week. Plus, I found out where the homeless kids hang out here with their animals, and started handing out dog food. Be well, take care, and all the best to you always. You're my role model. Rat <snip> |
|
|||
|
|||
PETA,
If, in your interesting ethical world, animals have rights, just how
do you propose to protect the animals from each other? I'm sure the deer would much rather be slowly torn apart by wolves, or try to die in old age in a rock nook while coyotes were nipping at its belly. Or the African elephant, after its sixth set of teeth decay, slowly starve to death. Nature, with its disease,droughts parasites, predators and wildfires is a far crueler master than the husbandry of man. Would you sentence the lion to life in prison for murder? Or would the death penalty be more appropriate? Would pheasants be hunted down for the serial murder of bugs? (Or are bugs cute enough to qualify for rights?) And of course we would have to arrest the big fish for eating the little fish. And then there would be the interesting task of re-training predators in vegan ethics. (Would it be okay to confine the predators during the re-education period?) Coherent answers, please, if you can do it.-Jitney |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
KFC is a sleazy marketer | General Cooking | |||
Tasteless apples - Doug K | General Cooking | |||
tasteless apples | General Cooking | |||
Tasteless ingredients | General Cooking | |||
tasteless acid ? | Preserving |