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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-12-2003, 09:23 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2003, 12:02 AM
Susan Kennedy
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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



  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2003, 12:10 AM
MEow
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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)
  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2003, 12:44 AM
Rubystars
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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


  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2003, 01:16 AM
Rat & Swan
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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



  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2003, 01:28 AM
Rat & Swan
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2003, 02:11 AM
Rubystars
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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


  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2003, 03:03 AM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #54 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2003, 04:48 AM
Offbreed
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #55 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2003, 04:55 AM
Fredrick L. Rice
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.



  #56 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2003, 05:03 AM
Rat & Swan
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2003, 05:06 AM
Rat & Swan
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

  #58 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2003, 05:16 AM
Rat & Swan
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2003, 05:20 AM
Rat & Swan
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

  #60 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2003, 05:21 AM
Susan Kennedy
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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





Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
KFC is a sleazy marketer Lynn from Fargo General Cooking 105 18-08-2008 03:41 PM
Tasteless apples - Doug K Nancy Young General Cooking 14 17-11-2005 12:57 AM
tasteless apples rmg General Cooking 25 28-10-2005 09:33 PM
Tasteless ingredients Daisy General Cooking 29 25-10-2004 09:27 AM
tasteless acid ? William R. Watt Preserving 16 26-09-2004 02:41 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright İ2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017