Admit it, you believe in animal rights.

[SezMe]

Progress advances by funerals. Subsequent generations will see less and less the need to kill animals for food. I think animals will be seen more and more as entitled to rights. I think technology and ecological problems and health problems will obviate the need to raise cows, pigs, goats, sheep and chickens for large scale meat production. We will grow it.

I once heard a talk by (now deceased) Garrett Hardin who was noted for his Tragedy of the Commons in which he asserted that lettuce was 98% water and how, then, it was idiotic to ship lettuce around the country. He thought the technology would eventually come about to ship only the "essence" of lettuce and then use local water to make real lettuce.

 

[mumblethrax]

You should read up on Ingrid Newkirk, the founder of PETA. She would like exactly that.

I have. How did you reach the conclusion that Ingrid Newkirk would like to see blind people jailed or fined for having a seeing-eye dog? I have a good idea what the source of this claim is, and I think it's a gross distortion, but it's possible that I've overlooked something.

"Is your ultimate goal to have all dogs and cats spayed and neutered in this city?" A few people beamed with delight as they emphatically answered "yes" to the councilman. That all sounds pretty innocuous until you learn that spaying or neutering a dog within the first six months (which is what this ordinance demands) creates health risks for the dogs, especially the larger breeds.

This is a good example of gotcha politics. I'm wasn't sure which ordinance you're referring to, so I looked it up; there's a medical exception, and of course nobody would expect that the law should encourage unsafe practices. Anyway, "yes" is a perfectly reasonable answer to the question as you present it.

Yes, "animal rights" groups (like PETA, HSUS, etc.), whether people who belong to them all individually know the ultimate goals of the organization, want nothing less than removal of all non-human animals as pets, livestock, or foodstock. With groups like PETA, they even supply funds and other support to known terrorist groups (like ALF) in support of those goals.

This, meanwhile, is exactly the kind of argument we would expect from a sound-bite culture. The suggestion that the animal rights movement is of a single mind about anything is laughable--I have never seen a group of people so at each others' throats. I know many people within the movement, including some at the organizations you name, and have talked to them personally: I have received words of encouragement from some of them after publicly arguing against people who take the positions recognizable as similar to the one you describe. Have you ever read any of the leading arguments in animal rights? I seriously doubt it. This is mostly just too-conveniently uninformed opposition--the oft-repeated allegation about support for terrorism is especially egregious and false.

This is a sideshow, though--we ought to be able to distinguish between animal rights in principle and whatever failings you imagine the animal rights movement to have.

 

[RandFan]

I once heard a talk by (now deceased) Garrett Hardin who was noted for his Tragedy of the Commons in which he asserted that lettuce was 98% water and how, then, it was idiotic to ship lettuce around the country. He thought the technology would eventually come about to ship only the "essence" of lettuce and then use local water to make real lettuce.

You mean like powdered milk, beef bullion, potato flakes, concentrated orange juice, etc., etc.?

The problem is simply one of technology and also practicality. We can make gold from lead but it's not practical.

I don't know if it will be one day possible to reconstitute freeze dried lettuce or something akin to that but the fact is we can grow meat right now.

 

[tkingdoll]

Actually a more succinct way to express my feelings is the sort of conversation I have with friends who buy 'free range' or 'organic' meat.

"why are you buying that? it's more expensive and fares the same in blind taste tests."
"because I care if the animal suffers"
"but you don't care if it dies?"

I've never had a satisfactory answer to that question. Sometimes I get "it was going to die anyway". Ha! Real ethic shopping, there. Generally, though, I find that most people haven't thought about the death aspect of 'animal welfare'. The 'being kind to animals' aspect seems to stop right about the point you let someone put a bolt through its skull to make tasty sausages.

 

[Nogbad]

Actually a more succinct way to express my feelings is the sort of conversation I have with friends who buy 'free range' or 'organic' meat.

"why are you buying that? it's more expensive and fares the same in blind taste tests."
"because I care if the animal suffers"
"but you don't care if it dies?"

I've never had a satisfactory answer to that question. Sometimes I get "it was going to die anyway". Ha! Real ethic shopping, there. Generally, though, I find that most people haven't thought about the death aspect of 'animal welfare'. The 'being kind to animals' aspect seems to stop right about the point you let someone put a bolt through its skull to make tasty sausages.

I mentioned to my kids that I bought a free range chicken and my son said "so it tastes better if it had false hope of life?"

On reflection I do think free range chickens taste a little better but largely I am more comfortable with their false hope of life. I don't think animals have rights unless we confer legal protection. Then again for most of human history that legal protection didn't extend to much of humanity either. Rights is perhaps an ill defined concept.

Having said that, people who enjoy killing animals have a track record of extending their repertoire.

 

[tkingdoll]

I mentioned to my kids that I bought a free range chicken and my son said "so it tastes better if it had false hope of life?"

On reflection I do think free range chickens taste a little better but largely I am more comfortable with their false hope of life. I don't think animals have rights unless we confer legal protection. Then again for most of human history that legal protection didn't extend to much of humanity either. Rights is perhaps an ill defined concept.

If you can afford to buy free range and enjoy the taste more than battery, then it makes sense for you to buy it. I'd like to challenge you to a blind taste test, but that's not practical

However, I support your right to make purchasing decisions and the right of farmers to supply choices to consumers. I don't support those who demand that everyone should have to pay the premium, though, and fortunately at the moment my government agrees that the poor folk of the country having access to affordable fast protein is more important than the welfare of the birds. In a recent furor in the UK over fat-faced celebrity chefs demanding we all buy free-range chickens, many low income parents pointed out that if they had to pay what free-range costs, they simply wouldn't be able to feed meat to their kids. It's a shortcut to nutrition and the alternatives for the same protein are more expensive. People first, animals later.

Having said that, people who enjoy killing animals have a track record of extending their repertoire.

I don't think that's completely true, although many serial killers do have histories of animal torture. But plenty of people hunt and enjoy it, and don't kill people.

 

[RandFan]

What I find interesting is the continuim of life. What is the line for rights and what do we mean by rights? The right to life? Do baby ducks have a right to life? Does the coyote have the right to eat baby ducks to further its life? Do we like dolphins because they are inteligent or because they look like they are smilling?

There are no easy answers. Do no harm seems at first to be a good rule of thumb but then I get a staph infection and I want to harm that damn bacteria as quickly as I can. Not out of some perverse sense of ill will to the bacteria but just to stop my suffering and to save my life.

In another previous lifetime, the Buddha sacrificed his own life to feed a starving tiger and her two cubs, who were trapped in the snow. He reasoned that it would be better to save three lives than to merely preserve his own. It is better to lose one's own life than to kill another being.

Perhaps it would be better to allow the staph to take my life thereby saving tens of thousands of bacteria.

Something to think about?

Nah.

 

[GreNME]

I have. How did you reach the conclusion that Ingrid Newkirk would like to see blind people jailed or fined for having a seeing-eye dog? I have a good idea what the source of this claim is, and I think it's a gross distortion, but it's possible that I've overlooked something.

Do you dispute that Newkirk's goal is to remove all pets, livestock, and feedstock from human society?

This is a good example of gotcha politics. I'm wasn't sure which ordinance you're referring to, so I looked it up; there's a medical exception, and of course nobody would expect that the law should encourage unsafe practices. Anyway, "yes" is a perfectly reasonable answer to the question as you present it.

Brand new ordinance, just recently voted on, and there isn't a medical exception for "the dog is under six months of age" in the ordinance. The medical exception is for an already-sick dog, not a currently-healthy one who would be put at risk with the procedure. Trust me, I live here, I've asked directly. This was in fact a point of contention brought up at the council meetings (and summarily ignored thanks to the AR folks).

This, meanwhile, is exactly the kind of argument we would expect from a sound-bite culture. The suggestion that the animal rights movement is of a single mind about anything is laughable--I have never seen a group of people so at each others' throats. I know many people within the movement, including some at the organizations you name, and have talked to them personally: I have received words of encouragement from some of them after publicly arguing against people who take the positions recognizable as similar to the one you describe. Have you ever read any of the leading arguments in animal rights? I seriously doubt it. This is mostly just too-conveniently uninformed opposition--the oft-repeated allegation about support for terrorism is especially egregious and false.

And, true to form, when I talk about the goals of the leaders of these groups and the foundational goals, the response becomes one about the individuals. Same old story.

I know that most of the individuals in these groups aren't as extreme as the founders and leaders. Unfortunately, it's the leadership that has led time and time again for these groups to lobby for more and more legislation that actually makes it more and more difficult to have a pet of any kind. What these groups do is play on the ignorance of the legislators they lobby to about the implications of their proposed ordinances (like the Dallas one), while piquing their interest with talk of fines or registrations or similar city revenue builders. In reality, though, the result is poorly-enforceable or unenforceable ordinances that these groups later use in allegations of animal cruelty.

This is a sideshow, though--we ought to be able to distinguish between animal rights in principle and whatever failings you imagine the animal rights movement to have.

If the AR movement isn't monolithic as you argue before, how are we going to define it in principle.

Make no mistake: I am in favor of keeping the welfare of animals at a humane level, within logic and reason. I am not in favor of movements that demand to tell me what I should do with my dog's testicles, where I should keep my dog, or what cities I'm allowed to have him. Animal "rights" groups are to blame for my dog being labeled a dangerous breed (GSD) in many areas, even though that same breed is used by police and military for assistance, search-and-rescue, and loads of other capacities. There's no logical reason someone with a German shepherd or a doberman pincer to not be allowed to live somewhere (or be forced to pay a premium to live there) when someone with a cocker spaniel or a poodle does not. AR groups are to blame for those sorts of legislations just as much as they are to blame for things like the spay/neuter ordinance I mentioned (and others like it).

 

[paximperium]

If you can afford to buy free range and enjoy the taste more than battery, then it makes sense for you to buy it. I'd like to challenge you to a blind taste test, but that's not practical

Hmmmm...taste just like chicken... with a hint of false hope and then a subtle crushed dreams aftertaste.

 

[Cain]

Some people here maintain animals do not have rights, but insist we should treat them "ethically." What does that mean? Why? Why would someone even use a charged word like "ethically"?

Questions of fact are different than questions of value. We can (theoretically) check questions of fact against objective existence to determine truth and falsity. There is no such standard to measure questions of value against.

Perhaps I was overstating my analogy. The basic point is one in favor of universal morality; your membership to a culture is not a moral exemption. The boundaries of morality do not suddenly change like the laws of a country.

I messed up on the agent/patient distinction, you're right there. But I don't think you can claim animals as moral patients. Likewise, although I share my societies horror at infanticide, there have been cultures that practiced it without remorse and in those cultures babies were not considered people. I can't accept that, but I can understand it. It's the whole abortion question again.

A pro-choice person, like myself, doesn't think a fertilized egg is a person because it shares very few characteristics with a developed, functioning, aware human. As it develops, that gap narrows. After a certain vague, undefined point, they share enough features to be considered human.

This gets to another fundamental distinction, the one between personhood and human. Not all persons are humans and not all humans are persons. Personhood should be our standard for rights, for protections against violence. The embryo, the fetus, infant, toddler, whatever, its species is Homo sapien.

When that happens I can't say. But I know times when it hasn't happened and when it has. When it's a fertilized egg, it's definitely not a moral patient. When it's a little kid running around it definitely is. Where in between there the line should be drawn is a question, but I'm happy to go with the societal definition of x weeks after fertilization.

The main point is that the threshold to consider a fetus (or whatever) a right bearing entity should be the same for non-humans. So if a dog, cow, pig has the same level of awareness, then it should also be considered a moral patient. What we need to look at are characteristics, not species membership.

This same kind of logic applies towards animal rights. A mosquito is so far removed from humanity that we feel no obligations towards it, a gorilla is so close we might.

That's anthropocentric reasoning. I agree that mosquitoes should not have rights, but it does not matter how far removed they are from humanity. Zantarians, we can say, are not even carbon-based, so in a strictly scientific sense we could share more in common biologically with mosquitoes, but that's a trivial fact in any morally serious discussion.

Is this your sole criterion? I'm pretty sure a lot of things can have pain or pain equivalent responses that you don't really care about.

No, but it's only one component, but an important one.

As I said, its a societal choice to draw the line for moral exclusion with infants on the included side. That isn't always the case. However, I'm happy to give infants bonus points for personhood because they are humans rather than other animals. I privilege humanity as a species based on rational self-interest, and the infants benefit from that.

In a moral sense "self-interest" does not really follow from rational. A rational mind is one that is impartial. As a rationally self-interested person and member of a privileged race, would you be "rationally hostile" to equal rights for minorities? It seems as though you're trying to reconcile egoism with utilitarianism.

Rights are a function of humanity to grant or withhold according to whatever arbitrary standards we apply. We are the only species capable of conceptualizing them, therefore we have a monopoly on their distribution. I also don't see what's so unreasonable about your Zantarinian example. It'd suck being on the short end of the stick, but why wouldn't a species promote a system of ethics with themselves at the center?

So it just reduces to who has the power and might makes right?

-------------
Randfan:

And the corollary is that, blah blah blah blah blah, five pages later, animal rights proponents would admit that parasites are entitled to rights.

Where has that come up in these threads? You're saved by gaps in the archives because I specifically remember you basically saying that whatever a society decides is fine, so we could happily kill people with purple hair if enough of us decided it. That thread was like pulling teeth.

---------

Nicholas Kristof recently wrote an editorial where he acknowledged the horrors involved not just in the industry but in the practice itself, relating some back-on-the-farm stories about the character of food animals, while simultaneously stating that he will continue to eat hamburgers and pate--I prefer his admission of hypocrisy to the obvious rationalization that most people prefer to indulge in, because it at least allows us to talk about what kind of world we ought to be striving for.

Oh God, I read that. I hate it when he goes back Yamhill (or whatever it is) and life on the farm. He's still better than a lot of people in my book, if only because I place a higher value on self-awareness than will-power.

 

[RandFan]

You're saved by gaps in the archives because I specifically remember you basically saying that whatever a society decides is fine, so we could happily kill people with purple hair if enough of us decided it.

Yes, it would be fine so long as it was fine with the society. I never said it was fine by me. The coyote thinks it's fine to eat baby ducks. He evolved to do so. The Great Egret Casmerodius evolved to commit siblicide. It's necessary to their survival.

If morality were absolute then the Coyote and great egret would be immoral.

That thread was like pulling teeth.

And yet you never learned that morality isn't absolute. That our sense of morality is an evolutionary trait that could have been very different. There is nothing special or transcendent about humans. If humans evolved to kill their siblings in order to survive then that would be moral. Period. End of story.

It's not a source of controversy for anthropologists. It's getting you to understand the evolutionary underpinnings of morality and that there is nothing absolute about morality that is like pulling teeth.

 

[linusrichard]

This has probably been said, but:

I don't believe in the right of animals to be free from abuse. I believe in the right of human society to be free from animal abuse.

 

[Jeff Corey]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of Animals to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Case closed.

The right to arm bears?
ETA SilentKnight scooped this.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Not true. Many species are much tastier.

And you would know this, how?

 

[paximperium]

And you would know this, how?

Ahhh...Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater...great game...love eating all the little animals.

 

[GreNME]

In re-reading the previous post I replied to, I thought I would dispel a few initial assumptions about what my level of understanding is about current animal rights groups and what has honed my opinion about them.

Let's start with the HSUS, or Humane Society of the United States.

Though the name for HSUS invokes a distinct similarity to your local humane society animal shelter, the HSUS is not affiliated in any way to local animal shelters. HSUS does own a rabbit farm they got along with another acquisition, but the HSUS owns and operates exactly zero dog shelters or rescues in the entire country, and has no facilities for holding, treating, or re-housing dogs, cats, rodents, and other pets. However, year after year the HSUS runs ads in many popular publications, asking for donations so that they can help animals, displaying pictures of dogs and cats or giving statistics about shelters. The money given to HSUS is spent lobbying for legislation, mostly against things like rodeos or livestock farms, medical research facilities, and in favor of anti-meat (vegan / vegetarian) groups.

In a rather recent (and disgustingly deceitful) display of of HSUS using the general ignorance of people about their agenda to make money, they ran a donation campaign using the (in)famous "Michael Vick Dogs" ^{[link to cached image]}. In the ad, the HSUS makes the following claim: "The HSUS has assisted federal authorities in the case against Michael Vick and his co-defendants, and is now overseeing the care of the 52 pit bulls seized from Vick's property in southwestern Virginia." That was a blatant lie, taking advantage of the confusion and outrage at the crimes by Vick to pull in revenue without any responsibility for the dogs themselves, who in reality were rehabilitated (and, in some cases, re-homed) by a different group altogether ^{[link1, link2]}. The HSUS had no intention of any money coming in to donations from that ad to be put toward the rehabilitation, and in fact they wanted the dogs put down. Indeed, the president of the HSUS, Wayne Pacelle, actually called for the dogs to be put down in the NYT ^[link]. This is not an exception to HSUS practices, this is simply the highest-profile example.

The fact is that the HSUS does nothing for the welfare of pets, unless you count lobbying (or, in fact, having affiliates lobby for them) to federal, state, and local government bodies to enact more and more legislation every year that either levies fees, fines, or seizures on pet and animal owners by the governing agencies. Again, Wayne Pacelle (HSUS president) is said to have stated that one of the goals of HSUS as "We will see the end of wild animals in circus acts," among other things. That, along with their roughly $30-40 million in donations each year (and more than $100 million in assets) doing absolutely nothing to help the welfare of the thousands of animals each year in shelters or in worse conditions, is the reason why I find the HSUS to be despicable in their tactics, goals, and behavior with regard to the welfare of animals in general. More information can be found here ^{[& here]} about other money and inappropriate legal troubles with the organization.

Next, PETA (everyone's favorite).

I doubt it's any secret that PETA kills loads of animals, and the state of Virginia has actually been asked to classify PETA as a slaughterhouse before ^[link] because of it. This was suggested because since 1998 PETA has killed over 19,000 (yes, more than nineteen thousand) animals in their Virginia facility ^{[PDF of VDACS reports]}. PETA advocates tend to argue that there was no other recourse with those animals, yet there are individual no-kill shelters and animal foster groups all over the country-- far too many to list here, a few for nearly every decent-sized city in the US and then some. However, so far at least two PETA members have been brought up on charges ^[PDF] of animal cruelty in the execution of their euthanasia practices. The defense was that the animals were beyond help, yet the pictures of some of the animals killed shows that there are many young dogs and puppies (link - caution, disturbing images for some). PETA's euthanasia ratio to the number of animals they find homes for or otherwise (like people reclaiming the animals) has consistently gone up every year since 1998:

_Year | _Received | _Adopted | _Killed | _Transferred | _{% Killed} | _{% Adopted 2007} | _1,997 | ₁₇ | _1,815 | ₃₅ | _90.9 | _{0.84 2006} | _3,061 | ₁₂ | _2,981 | ₄₆ | _97.4 | _{0.39 2005} | _2,165 | ₁₄₆ | _1,946 | ₆₉ | _89.9 | _{6.74 2004} | _2,655 | ₃₆₁ | _2,278 | ₁ | _85.8 | _{13.60 2003} | _2,224 | ₃₁₂ | _1,911 | ₁ | _85.9 | _{14.03 2002} | _2,680 | ₃₈₂ | _2,298 | ₂ | _85.7 | _{14.25 2001} | _2,685 | ₇₀₃ | _1,944 | ₁₄ | _72.4 | _{26.18 2000} | _2,681 | ₆₂₄ | _2,029 | ₂₈ | _75.7 | _{23.27 1999} | _1,805 | ₃₈₆ | _1,328 | ₉₁ | _73.6 | _{21.39 1998} | ₉₄₃ | ₁₃₃ | ₆₈₅ | ₁₂₅ | _72.6 | _{14.10 Total} | _22,896 | _3,076 | _19,215 | ₄₁₂ | _83.9 | _13.43

All of those numbers are found in PETA's own filings to the state of Virginia^[PDF]
PETA advocates also tend to try to downplay the criminal activities by saying that they are isolated and unrelated to PETA's cause, yet in the case of Rodney Coronado ^[WP], who firebombed a facility for his extreme AR cause, PETA's head Ingrid Newkirk herself made statements defending why PETA was paying the legal fees for his trial ^[link] (he even threatened the place be bombed afterward ^[link]). That wasn't the only time PETA has given money to individuals or groups linked to criminal and terrorist behavior. Going back to at least 1995 (and likely before), PETA has given money on more than one occasion to individuals linked to extremist or eco-terrorist groups ^[link]. Arguing that the organization doesn't is simply false. A quote from Richard Berman, executive director of the Center for Consumer Freedom back in 2002: "PETA collects millions of dollars in contributions every year from people who intend to support the humane treatment of animals," Berman said. "However, many of these well-intentioned individuals are likely unaware that since 1988 PETA has spent four times as much money defending criminals and domestic terror groups as it has in support of animal shelters." What Berman doesn't mention is the continuing increase in euthanasia practices by PETA, which has a higher animal kill rate than any shelter out there in the US.

These are just two examples of the "animal rights" movement, and they are the two biggest examples. They are liars, hypocrites, and promote an extreme and unreasonable agenda. In PETA's case, they also spend money promoting that agenda by defending criminals.

But please: tell me again how I'm speaking from ignorance or simply promoting sound bytes. I can provide data to back up my accusations. The only defense that AR advocates can use is to claim that individuals involved with these organizations aren't in it for those reasons. The reality is that there are literally millions of people all over the country who have ridiculously flawed idea of what these groups are and what their leadership promotes, all the while having these people volunteer and work for these extremist organizations while the genuine individually-run animal welfare groups throughout the nation suffer from low volunteer numbers, insufficient numbers of foster homes, and tightening budgets. Those local groups are the ones who are working to educate responsible ownership and advocate for the positive welfare of the animals out there. Those local groups are the ones who are taking in these animals and rehabilitating them. Groups like PETA and HSUS take all the credit without doing any of the actual work.


For disclosure: the GSD I mentioned earlier came from a shelter. My home also has a former foster who we adopted, and prior to that dog there was another foster-to-adoption dog in our home that wasn't expected to last three more weeks and wound up living another happy eleven months. We are in touch with more than one rescue group in the Dallas area, and we personally know several animal behaviorists/trainers, breeders, and a few vets. I'm not blowing smoke from my hindquarters with what I'm talking about as far as the presence of support structures out there, because I personally know and help with some of them. None of the groups I've met or dealt with will touch PETA or HSUS with a twenty foot rhetorical pole, partially for the reasons I listed above.

Frankly, to claim I am speaking from ignorance or some lack of knowledge on the subject is nothing but a defense through personal attack and, quite frankly, insulting not only to my intelligence but to intellectual honesty altogether. Yes, the issue is complex and yes not every single PETA or HSUS member is an eco-terrorist (nor supports them). However, what I am talking about is the entirety of the organizations themselves and the leadership thereof, who are the primary and most influential in the "animal rights" movement. As long as such individuals and practices or behaviors exist within the "animal rights" movement, then it can continue to count me out as an advocate and, in some cases, can find me on the other side of the argument against them.

 

[mumblethrax]

Do you dispute that Newkirk's goal is to remove all pets, livestock, and feedstock from human society?

One question at a time: can you support the contention that Ingrid Newkirk would like to see blind people jailed or fined for having seeing-eye dogs?

Brand new ordinance, just recently voted on, and there isn't a medical exception for "the dog is under six months of age" in the ordinance. The medical exception is for an already-sick dog, not a currently-healthy one who would be put at risk with the procedure. Trust me, I live here, I've asked directly. This was in fact a point of contention brought up at the council meetings (and summarily ignored thanks to the AR folks).

I know about it and I'm sure you've been misinformed. From the text of the amended ordinance:

(b) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) that:

(1) the animal is under six months of age;

(2) a licensed veterinarian certifies that the dog or cat should not be spayed or neutered for health reasons or is permanently non-fertile;

That certainly allows for exemption under veterinary advice, however the law may have been intended. And I'd like to point out that the 'AR folks' supporting the ordinance as-written includes the SPCA, hardly a group of bomb-throwing radicals.

And, true to form, when I talk about the goals of the leaders of these groups and the foundational goals, the response becomes one about the individuals. Same old story.

I was talking about the leaders of these groups, who also happen to be individuals; it seems that you mistook me for someone less awesome (alternately, you mistook the animal rights movement as one with a high degree of power distance in general). I note that you avoided the question about whether you've read any of the foundational documents of the animal rights movement, yet you make bold claims in conspiratorial terms about its goals and its leadership. Please don't try to tell me that I'm naive about it.

If the AR movement isn't monolithic as you argue before, how are we going to define it in principle.

I'd identify the common thread running through the various schools of thought is opposition to human tribalism, agreement that morally arbitrary biological distinctions should be discounted when determining how animals ought to be treated. Beyond that, anything seems to be possible--I recently had a conversation with an animal rights activist who is arguing against Prop 2.

Make no mistake: I am in favor of keeping the welfare of animals at a humane level, within logic and reason. I am not in favor of movements that demand to tell me what I should do with my dog's testicles, where I should keep my dog, or what cities I'm allowed to have him.

'Logic' and 'reason' here are again being used to project false moderation. What's so unreasonable or illogical about requiring that a dog be neutered? How does your right to have an intact dog stack up against the 27,000 dogs and cats euthanized by the City of Dallas in 2006? These are reasonable measures taken for the purpose of seeing to the humane treatment of animals in general.

Oh God, I read that. I hate it when he goes back Yamhill (or whatever it is) and life on the farm. He's still better than a lot of people in my book, if only because I place a higher value on self-awareness than will-power.

Yeah, he's sometimes cringe-inducing, but I'd only put him fourth or fifth on the list of the most annoying people on the Times' op-ed page, and somewhat further down the list of the most annoying people in the world.

 

[GreNME]

Apparently, you would rather argue about the ordinance than defend the accusations I laid out in detail above.

'Logic' and 'reason' here are again being used to project false moderation. What's so unreasonable or illogical about requiring that a dog be neutered? How does your right to have an intact dog stack up against the 27,000 dogs and cats euthanized by the City of Dallas in 2006? These are reasonable measures taken for the purpose of seeing to the humane treatment of animals in general.

Neutering my dogs does not save the lives of 27000 dogs. Education on responsible ownership, not the "there oughtta be a law" mentality, will save the lives of dogs.

When AR groups get around to actually helping those of us who are working to spread education and training, as well as caring for and fostering dogs in need, then you'll change my mind. Until then, you're dodging the real accusations by trying to get into semantic fights.

 

[GreNME]

By the way: could you show me where you got that text you cite. The version of the ordinance that I read contains no such provision. However, I admittedly have the original ordinance proposed to the city council. If it had indeed been changed, then that means the groups who handle foster care and animal welfare support in the city actually managed to get some positive results.

The truth is that the most vocal in the AR movement are the most egregious-- I don't need to sit here and make my case about how people I know have been harassed by the same folks who pushed the recent ordinance through in Dallas, because the law will take care of them when they cross the line and it's not fodder for this forum. Heckling people at dog shows and forcing responsible owners to pay fees to the city or state to own a pet is not going to help the welfare of the animals that are mistreated or abandoned, nor will it prevent irresponsible ownership of animals.

One question at a time: can you support the contention that Ingrid Newkirk would like to see blind people jailed or fined for having seeing-eye dogs?

Nice dodge. Newkirk did not mention the scenario you describe specifically, she has specifically stated the following ^[link]:

[People] need to understand that if they support the torture and misuse of other animals they will be made to pay. The animals are defenseless. They can't fight back. But we can. And, no matter what it takes, we always will.

And what does she think of seeing-eye dogs (same link)?

"She regards the use of Seeing Eye dogs as an abdication of human responsibility and, because they live as 'servants' and are denied the companionship of other dogs, she is wholly opposed to their use."

And from Harper's Magazine in 1988^{[link - needs subscription to read]}:

Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought on by human manipulation. We would no longer allow breeding. As the surplus of cats and dogs declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship-enjoyment at a distance.

She's careful not to say explicitly what you are asking me to show you, but she says exactly that in her demand to outlaw pet ownership. When something is against the law then doing that thing results in fines or jail. Your arguments are from obtuseness, not from logic.

It's not just Newkirk and her ties to ALF (or their spending on criminal defense of criminals) that make PETA so connected to AR terrorism. Bruce Friedrich, current VP of PETA, had the following to say (wav file) in relation to certain types of 'activism': "Then of course we, as a movement, are going to be blowing stuff up and smashing windows. For the record I don't do this stuff, but I advocate it. I think it's a great way to bring about animal liberation. And considering the level of atrocity and the level of the suffering, uh, I think it would be a great thing if, you know, all these fast food outlets and these slaughterhouses and these laboratories and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow."

Now, I'd like you to respond to the other post I made that included a bit more detail. Actually address what I'm saying, not trying to turn this into a "not everyone is that bad" kind of justification. Explain why HSUS lied about the Vick dogs to beg donations. Explain how PETA has funded the defense lawyers of criminals since the 1990's (at least). Explain why leaders of AR groups are advocating violence.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Is it OK to stomp a kitten to death? Is it OK to skin a puppy alive? Certainly animals have a right to humane treatment. Whatever other rights one has in mind would be up for individual discussion.