Hey Nick, glad to see you decided to re-join us.
I don’t know how to do the spiffy quotes (I’ve looked everywhere some assistance on this. Anyone?) So I’ll do it the old fashioned way:
NICKRZ:
" Before we go any farther, let me assure you I am not a dog or a cat or an animal hater in any sense. "
Yet earlier we see these words from Nickrz:
“when I go to dinner at someone’s house and see their cat prancing about on the kitchen counters with its microbe-laden-hey-I-just-played-with-my-feces feet, I wonder why anyone tolerates their presence.(Not to mention the hair - gawd… no horizontal surface is immune, and every stitch of clothing you own is contaminated, what a fashion statement…)”
and this:
"Dogs? Even worse. There’s nothing more revolting than to see someone swapping spit with these disgusting creatures, unless it’s watching as a dog owner lets his/her canine pal defecate in a public park, or on my front lawn and nonchalantly walk away as if nothing had happened. Any animal that sweats through its mouth does not belong in a civilized society. "
Now, I cannot imagine what I could possibly have been thinking to jump to the conclusion that you hate dogs and cats, what with loving words like these! You have obviously made it quite plain how warmly you feel toward them, haven’t you?
“I do not condone inhumane treatment of animals, never did. That little thing you so admirably ferreted out on my web site is called a joke, something you would be aware of had you looked at the context or if you knew anything about me at all.”
If I had stumbled across the site without knowing anything else about you, I wouldn’t have thought twice about it. (I was going to say that I would have laughed, except that the “joke” was so weak that I would not have). I probably wouldn’t have even noticed the phrase “recommended dosage”. It is preceisely because I had been reading your own words that I saw the darkness in your “humor”.
“But no, someone stepped on your doggie’s tail, and you come out spewing vitriol from every fiber of your being.”
Spewing vitriol? To disagree with you, to question you, to point out the flaws in your thinking, this is vitriol? No, Nick, vitriol is when people make nasty personal attacks, question other’s intelligence, belittle them and otherwise behave badly. I invite you to do as I am doing here, and show specific examples of this “vitriol”.
“I can’t help but wonder if you actually read or understood any of my posts on this subject.”
I read them very carefully and understood them perfectly. I responded to them very specifically. It would be so much more fun if you would do likewise.
" 1. Show me where and how I ‘maligned and disregarded animals.’ The only animals I maligned were irresponsible pet owners."
I believe we’ve already been here, done this. (Really Nick, you should re-read your own posts before you get defensive)
"2. Show me how a careful recitation of scientific thinking about how human and lower animals’ brains differ fosters cruelty to animals, and tell me why my “attitude” should not be allowed to “persist or prevail.”
I give you your own words in response:
“Everything else, animate or inanimate, totally lacking intellect and free will, is not a person but a thing.
Only persons have natural and unalienable rights. These we call human rights.There is no comparable animal rights.”
(and that would be “are” no comparable animals rights)
If you view animals as things, and conclude that things do not have rights of any kind, it follows that they may be abused with impunity. And such an attitude must not be allowed to prevail for obvious reasons. At least, reasons obvious to those of us who respect and honor the rights of animals.
You speak about these things as though they were fixed truths, when in fact they are constructs of human thought, which is the only thought we truly understand, or that some of us respect. We make the rules, and we make them only because we CAN, and not for any other reason. I prefer to take the view that despite our ability to bend our environment and everything in it to our will, we are only as worthy as we make ourselves. MIght does NOT make right.
"Are you suggesting that emotional arguments such as your own should take precedence over science? "
Again, you speak as though “science” was all of one mind on this topic, and it (they, scientists) are absolutely NOT. As I said before, the research continues, and the debate rages on. (Just as one example, there have been some fascinating experiments done recently that seem to show that chimps are truly self-aware, something that “science” always assumed was exclusive to humans).
"Of course, you’ll probably make some lighthearted remark about the quality of my science, but that is only because you yourself are ignorant of the facts, and prefer to argue "My dog loves me, and if I think it, it must be so.’ "
Not at all. I eagerly read everything I can find that has anything at all to do with animals, and most especially investigations into animal intelligence and emotion. And I have no axe to grind either way; animals don’t need to prove to me that they are intelligent, “intellectual”, self-aware, or capable of human-style emotion in order for me to accept that they are beings with rights. I wish I had the quote ready at hand about animals being “other nations”, for that is how I view them. They don’t have to be like ME in order to BE and be worthy of respect, honor, and compassionate treatment.
" 3. The only “threat” that exists here is the exposure of the willful ignorance of people who hold ideas in contempt before they examine the data. I have examined the data, what’s your excuse? "
I have examined the data. It conflicts.
“4. Your lumping me in with those who would torture animals needlessly I dismiss as out of hand. I’ve said nothing to give rise to these accusations. Nifty straw man, though.”
Really? Where did I lump you with those who would torture animals?
“5. Your clarification of your own position betrays the hypocrisy so prevalent among those of your ilk; You cannot tolerate animals “…pumped full of drugs, miserable, barely able to move…” but you’ll eat bacon from a pig that had been whacked on the head with a sledge hammer and had its throat slashed to bleed to death… that’s okay, because maybe they didn’t suffer, eh? (At least where you had to see it). Suppose you tell me where you draw the line, sister.”
Be happy to, brother.
The way it works is that just about everything and everybody gets eaten by somebody or something somewhere along the way. That’s just life. As a gardener, I can nurture and care for these wonderful living things, plants, and then kill them and eat them without compunction. Same goes for animals. Killing and eating animals is a natural process of life, for us and thousands of other creatures. Where I draw the line is making an animals’ LIFE torturous just to make the end business of killing and eating them more convenient for us. (And by the way, modern animal farming is grossly unhealthy for us anyway.) I dont’ have a problem with killing the pig, but I have a huge problem with forcing that pig to live from birth to death in a cage barely big enough to hold it, much less allow it to move around, forcing it to live in a cavernous building reeking of tons of feces, never allowing it to breath clean air. And creating conditions so foul that the animal would probably die of dsiease if not pumped full of drugs. THAT I have a problem with. (Especially pigs, since pigs are very intelligent animals, and the more intelligent, the more suffering is experienced in such treatment. They have observed pigs essentially “going mad” in this situation. )
The distinction is quite clear.
"6. I did not say ‘our superior value is all tied up in our intellect,’ you did. I did not imply ‘people are better,’ you inferred it. "
Again, class, let us refer to our text:
"Any dog/cat lover who insists on applying human attributes and emotions to a lowly beast which ca
But he’s not submissive. It’s very rare he’ll roll over for a belly rub and he doesn’t seem to get into it the way Daisy did.
)