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

"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

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

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)

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

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
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
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
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
"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
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
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
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

>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
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[···]
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
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
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.

"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
>

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)

"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

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

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

"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

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.

"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>

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.

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

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>

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

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

"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
>

"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.

"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.

"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...

"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.

>

"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.
>

"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.

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

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

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.

"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.



>
>

"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
>

"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...

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

"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

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)

> 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! =-----

Rick wrote:

<snip>
>Fanatics can not be swayed by reasoned discourse.

Talking about yourself here, I assume....

Rat

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.

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>

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