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
  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2003, 06:24 AM
Susan Kennedy
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA,


"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Rubystars wrote:

"Rat & Swan" wrote in message
snip

And will your grandson be neutered and kept indoors?



Rat I wasn't going to say anything up until you said this. Are you

opposed
to neutering cats and keeping them indoors? Those are two things which

are
strongly in the interest of cats!


You have to understand something, something that's
crucial to figuring out "aras". They have a rigid,
all-encompassing view of the human-animal relationship
continuum. They will strive at all times to remain
consistent with their fundamental view: that human use
of animals is evil. What they don't get, and never
will, is that they continually prove the truth of
Emerson's observation: "A foolish consistency is the
hobgoblin of little minds."

If it weren't already obvious that believers in "ar"
have small minds, this kind of foolish consistency
should make it clear.


I'm more under the impression that they are anthropomorphizing. Rat seems
to think animals are a lot more intelligent and capable than they are.
Perhaps they mistake cunning for intelligence, I don't know. I do know I am
an unashamed omnivore, just like a good many animals are.




  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2003, 06:39 AM
Susan Kennedy
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA


"Rat & Swan" wrote in message
...


Offered wrote:

Snip

I think some of their supporters are involved with the human
extinction movement.


Why should those in favor of animal rights wish any species to
go extinct? Humans are animals, too, and deserve no less
concern than other animals -- but (as a species) no more.

Rat


Animals, when left alone, eat or are eaten, dominate or are dominated.
You're definitely telling us we are not animals when you tell us we don't
have the right to do to animals what they do to each other.


  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2003, 06:48 AM
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA,


"Susan Kennedy" wrote in message
...

"Rat & Swan" wrote in message


snippage...


Personally, I don't see that AR will ever become that accepted.

--------------
She knows that too. It's just that she can't help herself with her
knee-jerk spews.
There wouldn't be crops, power, gas, transportation, heating, any number of
things in the world if animals had rights.
Afterall, you wouldn't be able to plow them under or poison them to keep
your food clean and cheap, or process them for storage and shipment.
Her own usenet spews contribute to the death and suffering of animals, yet
here she is, continueing for nothing more than her entertainment.


snippage...


  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2003, 06:48 AM
Susan Kennedy
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA,


"Rat & Swan" wrote in message
...


Rubystars wrote:
"Rat & Swan" wrote in message
snip


And will your grandson be neutered and kept indoors?


Rat I wasn't going to say anything up until you said this. Are you

opposed
to neutering cats and keeping them indoors?


While they are companion animals? No. I strongly recommend it.

Those are two things which are
strongly in the interest of cats!


I agree -- the interest of cats kept as pets. They are not in the
interest of cats who are free.

The poster claimed her cats were no more controlled than her
children. I doubt this very much, if for no other reason than, in
most cases, human children grow up, leave home, and develop lives
of their own. The basic wrong, in the AR concept, in keeping


This is exactly the problem. Cat, dogs, domestic animals, have the
intelligence of a small child. So do wild animals. They don't know to look
both ways before crossing the street until they are hit by a car - and by
that time, it's too late for most of them, even if they are intelligent
enough to learn. Are you also advocating that we give up cars, tractors,
and other vehicles, or lower the speed limit to about 10 miles an hour so
ignorant animals have time to get out of the way?

(and breeding or neutering ) cats and other pets is that we have
made them permanent dependents -- whether as slaves or food or
pseudo-"children". Obviously, the well-cared-for (not pampered )
pet, or even better, companion animal, will have a much better life
and welfare than a battery-cage hen, a calf in a veal crate, or
a fighting dog. That is good for that pet. But he/she has a better
life _at the whim of his/her owner_. The owner could as easily have


Now this part I agree with. Ask any farmer what happens when an owner
decides he or she doesn't want a pet anymore. Many of them have had to
shoot those feral dogs you talked about in our converstation because they
were killing livestock and would not hesitate to go after small children
either. Farmers often find dogs, cats, pet rabbits, etc., who have been
dumped near their farmhouses on the (false) theory that the farmer has the
time and money to find them and will take care of them. I just do not think
your solution is one.

abused or neglected him/her -- any episode of _Animal Precinct_ or
_Animal Cops_ ( or a stint in rescue ) will show how bad it can get.

What ARAs believe is that the basic master/pet relationship is
morally wrong. The life of the animal should not belong to the
master -- even the kind master. The animal should own his own life.


Animals do no own their lives in the wild, and if you think they do, you
need to watch some nature shows about predators.

That does not mean the human cannot have a relationship with the
animal -- something like Jane Goodall's friendship with her
chimpanzees or the relationships in _Never Cry Wolf_. Those people
didn't just observe at a distance; they touched and interacted with
the animals -- but they did not control them. Humans who go to places
(like the Galapagos Islands when they were first discovered) where
the animals have not had contact with humans before, are often amazed
that the animals do not fear them and run from them. Fear of humans
is a learned behavior in wild animals. Not that we will live in a
Disney world or a Dr. Doolittle world. But we can have a much more
friend-like relationship with animals who are neither our prey nor
our possessions.


What you choose to ignore is that 1: the human animal is by nature a
predator itself. and 2: there are plenty of other predators in the world
who would not hesitate to eat us as well as their other prey.

In the animal world, you're predator, or you're prey. Everything that
lives, eats something, and some animals just naturally eat other animals.
It's the way of the world.




  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2003, 06:50 AM
Susan Kennedy
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA,


"Fredrick L. Rice" wrote in message
link.net...
Rat & Swan wrote:



Susan Kennedy wrote:

"Rat & Swan" wrote in message



snip

Not keeping "pets" (or actually, companion animals) is a long-term

goal,
not anything that is going to happen any time soon. But this shows

the
poverty of imagination non-ARAs have: you can only imagine humans
interacting with animals in ways that dominate and control them. I

can
think of many ways to interact with animals on terms of mutual

freedom.
So can PETA (of which I am a long-term member, since 1984).



Where, exactly, do you propose these domestic animals live, if not
with us?



Where they please.

Anytime AR people start talking about ending domestication of animals,
both as "pets" and as livestock, the kind of glib question you pose
here is the anti-AR retort.


There's nothing glib about it, bitch, and you know it.
In fact, the question absolutely ****S you.


Question: I'm not upset about it, and she said it to me. Why are you so
upset about it?

And BTW, my cat is no more controlled than my children were. In fact,

she
even comes and wants attention when I'm on the phone, rather like my 3

year
old grandson.


In point of fact, by insisting that other people follow your beliefs,
aren't *you* the ones who wants control?



I present my beliefs; I do believe they are correct


Solipsistically.

and others should follow them,


Of course! You are a fascist at heart.

but I do not impose them by force.


Only because you don't have the means.

You are a fascist at heart. When you try to impose
your beliefs by force, as you necessarily must do, I
will shoot you dead.





  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2003, 06:57 AM
Susan Kennedy
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA,


"rick etter" wrote in message
...

"Susan Kennedy" wrote in message
...

"Rat & Swan" wrote in message


snippage...


Personally, I don't see that AR will ever become that accepted.

--------------
She knows that too. It's just that she can't help herself with her
knee-jerk spews.
There wouldn't be crops, power, gas, transportation, heating, any number

of
things in the world if animals had rights.
Afterall, you wouldn't be able to plow them under or poison them to keep
your food clean and cheap, or process them for storage and shipment.
Her own usenet spews contribute to the death and suffering of animals, yet
here she is, continueing for nothing more than her entertainment.


Much as I hate to say it, you're reactions sound pretty knee-jerk to me.
Not that I don't agree with some of what you say, but I really gotta say -
if I were on the fence, the way you say it would likely push me over on her
side, even if only temporarily.


  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2003, 07:12 AM
Rat & Swan
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA,



Susan Kennedy wrote:

"Rat & Swan" wrote in message
...


snip

Where, exactly, do you propose these domestic animals live, if not with

us?


Where they please.


Anytime AR people start talking about ending domestication of animals,
both as "pets" and as livestock, the kind of glib question you pose
here is the anti-AR retort. However anti-ARAs seldom wait for an


Hey, give me a break. I'm totally new to this particular argument.


I'm sorry. I apologize.

All I
know about PeTA is what I read in the papers, and I live in a rural area.
Believe me, around here, it does not get good press. In fact, most of the
time, they sound like fools, and it's hard to tell how much of that is them,
and how much is the press.


It's a little of both. PETA is a high-profile sort of guerrilla
-theater group given to the snappy slogan and flamboyant gesture,
not the calm, reasoned argument. I don't get my philosophical ideas
from PETA, but from other, more philosophical writers. But PETA
lives by the theory that any publicity is good publicity, and at least
gets people talking about their ideas. Then, if people are
intrigued by ladies dressed up in lettuce-leaves or tofu-cream pies
tossed at fur models, they may be introduced to the background behind
such stunts and go further with the ideas. PETA does do some real
good actions, such as organizing rescue of pound dogs in Puerto Rico,
or helping the SPCA rescue animals after a big flood, or helping place
chickens rescued after a company went out of business and left a
barn-full of chickens to starve. I give to other organizations, too,
like Farm Sanctuary and my local humane society, and have worked in
animal rescue.

snip

Ok, now you're contradicting yourself. First you tell me that we've made
them totally dependent on us, then you start talking about feral animals and
how they prove most domesticated species could easily be reintroduced to the
wild.


Pets are pretty much totally dependent on us, as are highly-bred
livestock like dairy cattle and domestic turkeys. But the
species they come from can become feral.

Or do you really think feral cats and dogs are actually wild animals?


Genuine feral animals are wild -- they are the offspring of formerly-
domesticated animals born and raised in the wild. Animals who have
been dumped and abandoned are strays, not ferals. You can find genuine
ferals like mustang horses, feral cats and rabbits in Australia, feral
goats and wild pigs (as in California in some areas) and so on.

They're not. They are dogs and cats that have been mistreated and dumped in
the wild. They survive because they are still equipped to do so. In fact,
dogs dumped in the same area have been known to pack and even interbreed
with coyotes, and become a real problem for farmers because they aren't
afraid of humans.


Yes.

At any rate, you can't have it both ways. Either they are totally dependent
on us, or they aren't.


Some individuals are, some are not.

to the wild would involve reintroducing populations to suitable
habitat, helping to extend such suitable habitat, encouraging a
balance of vegetable, prey, and predator species so you don't get
the rabbits-in-Australia situation, and encouraging a strong
ecological awareness in humans so that they curb their run-away
population explosion and give the rest of the species some room to
survive. As I say, it would not happen overnight. But it could
certainly happen, if AR became accepted. Then all that would be
required would be not to breed the domestic stock, but to let those
animals live out their lives with humans in peace, and let their
line end with them.


Personally, I don't see that AR will ever become that accepted. First of
all, if you're going to give them rights - you have to include the right to
breed.


Yes, eventually.

And that means the last part never happens. Second, if animals can
choose, many of them will choose to continue to live with humans, because
pets are not just something that belongs to you. They are friends in ways
people who have never had one cannot understand.


I understand -- but while people love pets and sometimes treat them
like 3 year old children, children are not ( I hope ) "friends" --
they are children. Friends are equals; pets are never equals.

And BTW, my cat is no more controlled than my children were. In fact,

she even comes and wants attention when I'm on the phone, rather like my 3
year old grandson.


And will your grandson be neutered and kept indoors?


You miss the point.


No -- that IS the point.

If I were to let my cat do whatever she wanted, she
would have been dead years ago, much as my three year old grandson would be
dead if his mother let him do whatever he wanted. The world is a
complicated and dangerous place.


Yes, I agree. I have neutered my own companion animals, and encourage
others to neuter theirs. But I wouldn't neuter my friends, even if
I had the power to do so.

And if she weren't neutered, I'd be up to my ears in kittens I didn't want
and would have to find homes for. Of course, I could let them go wild, but
the county would likely frown on that. :P And that's if they lived.


Yes. In the wild, cubs, kittens, pups and so on usually die in
proportion to keep the population _relatively_ in balance with the
food supply over the long term. Either the species has some form of
social population control like wolves, or many of the young die (as
with lions ).

snip

Rat

  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2003, 07:21 AM
Rat & Swan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Thank You, Susan!



Susan Kennedy wrote:

Much as I hate to say it, you're reactions sound pretty knee-jerk to me.
Not that I don't agree with some of what you say, but I really gotta say -
if I were on the fence, the way you say it would likely push me over on her
side, even if only temporarily.


Thanks. That kind of response by etter is why I reacted so harshly
to you. It's rare to get a reasonable opponent on the group I post
on (talk.politics.animals). I like talking without nasty attacks,
even with people who don't agree with me. Let's hope we can continue.

Rat

  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2003, 07:26 AM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA,

Rat & Swan wrote:



Jonathan Ball wrote:

snip

You have to understand something, something that's crucial to figuring
out "aras". They have a rigid, all-encompassing view of the
human-animal relationship continuum. They will strive at all times to
remain consistent with their fundamental view: that human use of
animals is evil. What they don't get, and never will, is that they
continually prove the truth of Emerson's observation: "A foolish
consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."



And if you read what I said to Rubystars on the subject, it will be
obvious that, as always, you are again wrong about me.


I am 100% right about you. You exhibit EXACTLY the
foolish consistency against which Emerson railed.


You'll never get it.


Oh, I get you completely. There isn't much to get.

  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2003, 07:29 AM
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA,


"Susan Kennedy" wrote in message
...

"rick etter" wrote in message
...

"Susan Kennedy" wrote in message
...

"Rat & Swan" wrote in message


snippage...


Personally, I don't see that AR will ever become that accepted.

--------------
She knows that too. It's just that she can't help herself with her
knee-jerk spews.
There wouldn't be crops, power, gas, transportation, heating, any number

of
things in the world if animals had rights.
Afterall, you wouldn't be able to plow them under or poison them to keep
your food clean and cheap, or process them for storage and shipment.
Her own usenet spews contribute to the death and suffering of animals,

yet
here she is, continueing for nothing more than her entertainment.


Much as I hate to say it, you're reactions sound pretty knee-jerk to me.
Not that I don't agree with some of what you say, but I really gotta say -
if I were on the fence, the way you say it would likely push me over on

her
side, even if only temporarily.

==================
That's the point. her side is bogus, and she knows it. Winning a
miss-congeniality isn't my thing. Pointing out her lys and delusions is.
btw, she also supports *** sex with young boys. She has no problem with
nambla, and even supports them. Animals she'll say she protects, yet she
can't bring herself to condemn queers that prey on little boys. Her whole
belief system is so skewed as to be irrelevant.









  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2003, 07:33 AM
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Thank You, Susan!


"Rat & Swan" wrote in message
...


Susan Kennedy wrote:

Much as I hate to say it, you're reactions sound pretty knee-jerk to me.
Not that I don't agree with some of what you say, but I really gotta

say -
if I were on the fence, the way you say it would likely push me over on

her
side, even if only temporarily.


Thanks. That kind of response by etter is why I reacted so harshly
to you.

====================
What, the truth is too hard for you to take now? Refute what I said then.
You never have, and never will be able to. You do nothing to support,
defend, or uphold the rights you claim animals have! Unlike you, I've
never used profanity in any of my posts.


It's rare to get a reasonable opponent on the group I post
on (talk.politics.animals). I like talking without nasty attacks,
even with people who don't agree with me. Let's hope we can continue.

==================
Hey, I don't get nasty with you, unless of cousre you find the truth to be
nasty. Well, maybe you do, since you rarely visit reality.


Rat



  #72 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2003, 07:40 AM
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA,


"Susan Kennedy" wrote in message
...


snippage...

Question: I'm not upset about it, and she said it to me. Why are you so
upset about it?

=============
Usenet is not a one on one conversation. It's an open forum where anybodys
posts can, and will, be addressed.
You'll get used to it. If you don't like what some people say, you can
always take the easy path and killfile people.
Of course, then you run the risk of only seeing those that you agree with.


snippage...


  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2003, 08:03 AM
Rat & Swan
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA,



Susan Kennedy wrote:

snip
This is exactly the problem. Cat, dogs, domestic animals, have the
intelligence of a small child. So do wild animals.


Animals vary tremendously in intelligence. Some, like some parrots,
really do have the intelligence of small human children on human-style
intelligence tests, but from my experience with animals, their
ways of interacting with the world are so different from humans', it's
hard to compare one-to-one with any particular stage of human
development.

They don't know to look
both ways before crossing the street until they are hit by a car - and by
that time, it's too late for most of them, even if they are intelligent
enough to learn. Are you also advocating that we give up cars, tractors,
and other vehicles, or lower the speed limit to about 10 miles an hour so
ignorant animals have time to get out of the way?


No. I wouldn't suggest ignoring animals in your headlights, but
part of owning one's own life is to take one's own risks.

(and breeding or neutering ) cats and other pets is that we have
made them permanent dependents -- whether as slaves or food or
pseudo-"children". Obviously, the well-cared-for (not pampered )
pet, or even better, companion animal, will have a much better life
and welfare than a battery-cage hen, a calf in a veal crate, or
a fighting dog. That is good for that pet. But he/she has a better
life _at the whim of his/her owner_. The owner could as easily have


Now this part I agree with. Ask any farmer what happens when an owner
decides he or she doesn't want a pet anymore. Many of them have had to
shoot those feral dogs you talked about in our converstation because they
were killing livestock and would not hesitate to go after small children
either. Farmers often find dogs, cats, pet rabbits, etc., who have been
dumped near their farmhouses on the (false) theory that the farmer has the
time and money to find them and will take care of them. I just do not think
your solution is one.


abused or neglected him/her -- any episode of _Animal Precinct_ or
_Animal Cops_ ( or a stint in rescue ) will show how bad it can get.


What ARAs believe is that the basic master/pet relationship is
morally wrong. The life of the animal should not belong to the
master -- even the kind master. The animal should own his own life.


Animals do no own their lives in the wild, and if you think they do, you
need to watch some nature shows about predators.


I do think animals own their own lives in the wild. That does not mean
they don't face dangers of predation, starvation, dominance fights,
and so on. But think about it -- humans do, too, both within our own
society, and interacting with non-humans. A human getting shot or
arrested for trespassing is like an animal being driven out of another
animal's territory; a low-status animal being picked on by a
higher-status animal or driven out of the group is like a human being
fired or mugged; a human being eaten by a tiger or crocodile is like
a rabbit being eaten by a predator. But those situations are a lot
different from a human held as a slave, or a little child controlled
by parents -- when a human really doesn't own his own life.

That does not mean the human cannot have a relationship with the
animal -- something like Jane Goodall's friendship with her
chimpanzees or the relationships in _Never Cry Wolf_. Those people
didn't just observe at a distance; they touched and interacted with
the animals -- but they did not control them. Humans who go to places
(like the Galapagos Islands when they were first discovered) where
the animals have not had contact with humans before, are often amazed
that the animals do not fear them and run from them. Fear of humans
is a learned behavior in wild animals. Not that we will live in a
Disney world or a Dr. Doolittle world. But we can have a much more
friend-like relationship with animals who are neither our prey nor
our possessions.


What you choose to ignore is that 1: the human animal is by nature a
predator itself.


Yes, to a degree. But we don't have to live as predators. We are not
(under good conditions) predators over our pets, or many wild animals.
Humans can live in other ways; we are not obligate carnivores.

and 2: there are plenty of other predators in the world
who would not hesitate to eat us as well as their other prey.


Certainly.

In the animal world, you're predator, or you're prey. Everything that
lives, eats something, and some animals just naturally eat other animals.
It's the way of the world.


But many animals do not eat other animals. Humans are unusual in the
animal kingdom in that they can control their own behavior and
environment in such ways that they can live as herbivores, not
omnivores. That does not mean animals will not die as a result
of human actions. But we can do much more to respect animals and
treat them as beings with certain very basic rights than we do.

Rat

  #74 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2003, 08:58 AM
Rubystars
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA,


"Rat & Swan" wrote in message
...


Rubystars wrote:
"Rat & Swan" wrote in message
snip


And will your grandson be neutered and kept indoors?


Rat I wasn't going to say anything up until you said this. Are you

opposed
to neutering cats and keeping them indoors?


While they are companion animals? No. I strongly recommend it.

Those are two things which are
strongly in the interest of cats!


I agree -- the interest of cats kept as pets. They are not in the
interest of cats who are free.


Here's something to ponder though. There's likely to be pet cats (and other
pets) long after all of us are dead. So would you do more good by saying
that people shouldn't breed and keep cats, or would you do more good by
promoting spay/neuter programs and education as well as promoting indoor
cats?

The poster claimed her cats were no more controlled than her
children. I doubt this very much, if for no other reason than, in
most cases, human children grow up, leave home, and develop lives
of their own. The basic wrong, in the AR concept, in keeping
(and breeding or neutering ) cats and other pets is that we have
made them permanent dependents -- whether as slaves or food or
pseudo-"children".


Cats are more independent, but there are other animals, such as dogs and
parrots, which live life in the wild as part of a group. Why is it wrong to
make them part of our family (or pack or flock, as the case may be)?

Obviously, the well-cared-for (not pampered )
pet, or even better, companion animal, will have a much better life
and welfare than a battery-cage hen, a calf in a veal crate, or
a fighting dog. That is good for that pet. But he/she has a better
life _at the whim of his/her owner_. The owner could as easily have
abused or neglected him/her -- any episode of _Animal Precinct_ or
_Animal Cops_ ( or a stint in rescue ) will show how bad it can get.


I believe that there are many people who don't deserve or need to have pets
just as there are many people who don't deserve or need to have children,
but I'm not promoting a banishment of sex to prevent the latter. Neither do
I promote abolishing the pet trade entirely. There are good and bad sides to
both.

I really think that things could be improved if there was greater public
awareness about the nature of animals. For example one episode of that show
had a dog rescued by the agents that had suffered from being burned
(apparently by accident) with cooking oil. The lady who had owned the dog
said something about "I don't know nothing about no dog burns." The agents
had to explain that the dog felt the same kind of pain she would feel if she
were burned like that. It seems so basic, but so many people are just plain
ignorant, and treat animals as if they have no feelings.

Maybe these kind of situations would happen less often if people were better
educated. This is where zoos come in, and other institutions that teach
people about animals and allow some interaction. Shows like the ones you
mentioned also help.

What ARAs believe is that the basic master/pet relationship is
morally wrong. The life of the animal should not belong to the
master -- even the kind master.


The thing that I don't understand about this is that many animals live
longer and healthier lives in captivity. I doubt that wild wolves generally
live to be 13-15 years old, but domestic dogs do. They receive a consistent
supply of food, water, shelter, and hopefully love. They get taken to the
vet when they get sick or injured instead of suffering without help for days
on end or slowly dying as would a wild animal. Even if an owner can't afford
to cure a disease suffered by the animal, being put down by the vet is a
much kinder way to go than what would happen if the problem (like a twisted
stomach) was simply left to progress on its own.

The animal should own his own life.
That does not mean the human cannot have a relationship with the
animal -- something like Jane Goodall's friendship with her
chimpanzees or the relationships in _Never Cry Wolf_. Those people
didn't just observe at a distance; they touched and interacted with
the animals -- but they did not control them.


Though you have to admit, any contact with animals poses some risk to both
the animals and to the humans. One may accidentally hurt them. For example,
many of the diseases that affect humans also affect chimpanzees, and vice
versa. What if an infected human was playing with a wild chimp and sneezed
on them by accident? The chimp might die of the flu. Almost any reptile
carries the risk of salmonella, etc.

Parasites (like fleas) might pass from animal to animal by hitching a ride
on a human, etc.

So you see if you really want to eliminate humanity's impact upon animals,
you have to cut off all contact.

Humans who go to places
(like the Galapagos Islands when they were first discovered) where
the animals have not had contact with humans before, are often amazed
that the animals do not fear them and run from them. Fear of humans
is a learned behavior in wild animals.


Animal populations that were around hominids may have developed a fear of
the upright walking creatures before "humans" even existed, and the fear may
be instinctual now in some of those species.

However I think you're right that most animals have learned fear of humans.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing. If an animal doesn't run away from
someone like you or I, they might not run away from someone who does wish
them harm. I've heard on tv that one of the things that's so hard about
raising orphaned animals for re-release is not to let them get to trust
humans too well, because if a deer for example doesn't run when it
sees/smells humans, they'll be in big trouble.

Not that we will live in a
Disney world or a Dr. Doolittle world. But we can have a much more
friend-like relationship with animals who are neither our prey nor
our possessions.


That would be a Disney or Dr. Doolittle world, because even if the AR
movement had great success and a vast majority of governments and societies
were following the policies laid out by it, then there would still be
individuals and groups who both used and abused animals.

-Rubystars


  #75 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2003, 09:27 AM
frlpwr
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA,

Susan Kennedy wrote:

"Rat & Swan" wrote in message

(snip)

Where, exactly, do you propose these domestic animals live, if not
with us?

ARAs aren't suggesting domestic animals be let loose to fend for
themselves nor do they intend to raid homes and farms slaughtering
companion and farm animals.

A phase out is the usual proposal and would be relatively quick if all
breeding of domestic species ended. Most males of domestic livestock
are already castrated so, since food animals are under strict human
control, it would not be that difficult to castrate all of them.

The best case scenario would have livestock pastured for the remainder
of their natural lifespans, sheltered and supplementally fed, if
necessary, by the same farmers who have been making money off them,
their offspring, their mothers, fathers, grandmothers, grandfathers,
great grandmothers, great grandfathers, etc. The animals would cash out
their profit-sharing.

We all know that won't happen, so, sadly, existing livestock would
probably have to be slaughtered as scheduled. Without replacements in
the pipeline, chickens would be gone in months, furbearers and hogs in a
year to a hear and a half, cattle in two to four.

Phasing out companion animals could follow the same pattern, except
large populations of feral cats and dogs would make spaying female
"pets", instead of males, more effective. Existing feral populations
could be managed as they are now, spay/neuter/release followed by
lifetime care until attrition takes the last of them or they could be
left alone and unaltered with the inevitable winnowing of those less
suited to an independent life among human and non-human enemies.
Eventually, truly wild strains of formerly domestic species would be
distilled from feral populations.

And BTW, my cat is no more controlled than my children were.
In fact, she even comes and wants attention when I'm on the phone,
rather like my 3 year old grandson.


Unlike your 3 year old grandson, you are free to euthanize your cat when
its bid for attention becomes too annoying.

Humans think it's cute to say we are slaves to our companion
animals, but it's not. The fact is we exercise ultimate control over
every facet of the life and death of our "pets". If they rebel, they
are "unmanageable" and we euthanize them, surrender them, abandon them
or tether them in the yard.

In point of fact, by insisting that other people follow your beliefs, aren't *you* the ones who wants control?


As Rat says elsewhere, persuasion is the only certain way to secure
rights for animals. No law in the world is capable of enforcing
humility, generosity, concern or genuine respect for anybody or
anything. The only thing laws can do and should do is better regulate
the way humans treat the animals we use.

I know there is a danger in codifying the unjust status of animals as
property. A well regulated system of exploitation is still
exploitation, but, food and fiber animals need relief now and it would
take a cold-hearted rightist to reject welfare reform that offered real
and enforceable improvements for farm animals. most of which are living
and dying in intensive production systems.

There are no national standards set for the housing and care
of food and fiber animals. Many state anti-cruelty statutes have an
exemption for farming. A simple rule (species specific) governing the
number of animals per acre would be a great place to start.

(snip)



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 01:57 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 03:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017