I think the phrase you are grasping for is:
People don’t take crazy non-conservative extremists seriously.
Strictly speaking, dogs can’t make an effort to become domeesticated: they’re not smart enough. Those wolves that behaved in a domestic fashion, however, were more likely to get good food and to reproduce than wolves that stayed wild. If the species had a plan, which it didn’t, it might be fair to say that it was the species’s plan to become domesticated.
I think this line of reasoning is really problematic. With it, how do you account for the profoundly retarded humans who cannot recognize anything so abstract as a right to live? I mistrust any ethical framework that gives one justification for our own rights and a different justification for the profoundly retarded.
The “natural order” also contains rape, cannibalism and a host of other things that we as humans reject. I think this line of reasoning is similarly problematic. “Natural” and “good” are not synonyms.
Daniel
We can’t possibly know the answer for sure, but that is one hypothesis.
I also think that when it came to times of hardship (winter/drought etc) we humans had something dogs/wolves didn’t…fire.!
We had also learned when hard times were coming and had provided for those times by storing food, we had caves as well
So, dogs/wolves got hungry, smelled our food, saw our fire, felt the warmth and thought "Hey these guys are smart, I’m gonna wheedle my way in "
Not at all. Conservative extremists, the religious nuts who not only believe that the endtimes are here but have already built a bunker for it, as well as the Libertarians who want to privatize roads and police forces, aren’t taken seriously at all in political culture. The fact that the bar’s a bit higher for the title “extremist” on the right (due no doubt to the fact that America is a very right-wing country when compared to other industrialized nations) doesn’t really matter.
By definition, a majoritarian society excludes radicals. That’s not to say that the government is therefore the perfect median of political opinion, or that an extremist can’t sneak in somewhere, but for the most part, they’re ignored and mocked.
Just chiming in on my personal peta thoughts. Several years ago at a concert I was attacked physically by at least 4 people claiming to be peta representatives. I was hurt but thanks in part to my military training and the lack of fighting skill they demonstrated I managed to chase them away before I was seriously injured.
My crime? I was wearing a leather jacket and boots. That same jacket and boots quite literally saved my life on 11-14-06 when I, on my motorcycle, slid for over 200 feet after being run off the road by an SUV on the highway.
Is hurting humans not hurting animals? Just a thought.
The peta people would say that you should buy gear that’s not made of leather.
(I’m on your side here.)
I have heard that too but the prices of “good” synthetic gear put it all way out of reach for me. I suppose that their answer would be that if I cant afford to ride without an animal dyeing for my safety then I should not ride.
This reeks of extremist thinking to me.
The kind of people that ride are not usually the kind of people that would attack you at a show for wearing leather.
Well, I’ve been convinced. Tomorrow I’ll take the Pugs out to the wilderness and let them frolick freely while fending for themselves.
That’ll make PETA happy, right?
And since nobody has used the proper retor, allow me.
Proud member of PETA*.
*People Eating Tasty Animals.
That New York Strip cooked over charcoal was scrumptious tonight!
Hmm. Thus some form of test proof of the comment often made about PETA: “PETA holds demonstrations to protests fur, but not leather. This is beacuse it is easier to abuse little old ladies and soclialites than biker gangs.”
Who said that quote?
I’ve read somewhere on their website that they consider domesticated animals to be pathetically weakened by their taming, and should be allowed to die out, presumably by sterilization, but nonetheless well treated while extant. This seems to apply mainly to pets; I’m not sure how they envision livestock returning to the wild when they have lived with humans for thousands of years.
Here’s their actual position. What you said is a pretty heavily twisted version of what they say.
Not that I agree with their position. For example, they posit that “dogs, cats, or birds, whose strongest desire is to be free, must be confined to a house, yard, or cage for their own safety.” That’s not just anthropomorphizing, that’s ethnocentric anthropomorphizing. What on earth would make anyone think that a cat desires freedom more than it desires safety, warmth, or playthings?
Daniel
I think if PETA got its way, everyone would go vegan, not vegetarian. You see, they oppose the confinement (a.k.a. shelter) of farm animals.
But I always get suspicious of their video evidence of animal mistreatment. Farmers who abuse animals are on a fast path to unemployment. And I always wonder how they get such great footage of these atrocities. Am I suggesting that they stage their animal abuse footage to tug at the emotions of the public? I wouldn’t put it past them.
ALF has been known to receive funding from PETA, so I don’t really draw a line between one and the other.
Even the vast majority of PETA opponents vehemently oppose violence against animals. Any one of us would be apalled to see someone beating an animal, and I think they use that emotional impact to persuade people. People who actually enjoy causing physical harm to animals are quite rare, and I’m offended when I see farmers and scientists lumped into that category.
Definitely true.
First, why on earth would farmers who abuse animals be on a fast path to unemployment? There’s nothing at all that indicates that humane practices are the most efficient means for producing meat, any more than worker-friendly practices in factories are the most efficient means for producing products. Farmers who insert nonmonetary considerations such as the well-being of their animals into the equation are likelyto be outcompeted by those farmers who focus solely on the bottom line.
Second, they get their footage with folks going undercover. Given that the targets of their videos don’t deny that the videos are real, speculation about whether the videos are staged is unfounded.
That’s not at all true: do you mean that the majority of PETA opponents oppose sadistic cruelty toward animals? Because killing an animal for food may well be justified violence, but it’s certainly violence. I’d agree with you if you mean that most PETA opponents also oppose sadistic cruelty toward animals, but that’s a very different equation.
Daniel
All you’ve proven here is that PETA is viewed by the voters of Arizona as “so extreme and so laughable that invoking its name is enough to frighten away people who would be amenable to moderate means”. I have no position on whether that view is accurate or not, just saying that your evidence doesn’t prove your case.
On the farm where I grew up, I remember getting a long lecture when I accidentally startled a cow which then kicked at me and injured her leg. Actually, it was a lot more harsh than a “lecture,” I was yelled at for a long time. I was told to treat the cows with absolute respect because that kind of injury could permanently injure the leg, shortening the cow’s life, and rendering the meat from that area useless.
So, when I see that kind of footage, I think of how unprofessional they are behaving. It is wasteful. I liken it to a banker lighting cash on fire to keep warm, or because it’s so cool looking. So, the mistreatment of animals is financially unwise. Not only is animal abuse cruel, it’s a costly mistake.
I’ve seen many cattle being butchered, and it could be considered “violent,” but the animal was killed as quickly as possible. Even after the animal is dead, it can sometimes move its legs randomly. If you kill the animal quickly, it is less likely to “wake up” and panic, which makes it easier, as well as far less cruel. I’ve seen a cow take three bullets in the head before it went down, which is why my dad used to knock them unconscious. It’s violent, but less cruel, and just plain easier.
So, I believe that cruelty to animals lowers the quality of the meat, and complicates the process of butchering. This is why I think the abuse is the exception more than the rule.
QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]I’d agree with you if you mean that most PETA opponents also oppose sadistic cruelty toward animals, but that’s a very different equation.
[/QUOTE]
That is what I meant.
Well, it certainly is taken to extremes by some people.
You’re right about synthetics being more expensive. Or is it that animal-derived products are cheaper?
Animal-extracted products, like leather, are favored both by inertia (they’re “legacy systems” in computing terms) and by sizable system-wide subsidies. Cattle are grazed at deliberately low rates on publically-owned land; the government provides meat inspectors; etc., etc.
PETA would argue that such subsidies are another barrier to ethical behavior. You could choose to wear leather substitutes, but the price incentive is very strong…and is created and supported by the whole system that exploits animals.
I personally think that the problem is even larger than that, but that’s a lengthy hijack.
I have disagreed with many of the things animal-rights extremists (and other sorts of extremists, for that matter) have said…I am not wholly in either camp. But at the risk of ridicule, I’d suggest that it’s fruitful for people to think about the condsiderable parallels between the animal rights/animal welfare movements and Abolitionism in America before the Civil War. Abolitionists were so demonized by their (often self-interested) opponents that the stigma attaches to the term even today…reading modern books on the Civil War era, I am struck by how often university professors make disparaging remarks about abolitionists as fanatics. Possibly they are pandering to their audiences? A lot of Civil War readership has Confederate sympathies…
The Abolitionists said many radical things about according rights and respect to what everyone else regarded as “property”. They released that “property” to fend for itself, sometimes with unintended consequences. They were completely impractical. They said they knew what was right, despite the claims that “everybody knew” their demands were unrealistic. They did not take into account the effect their demands would have on traditional farming economies. They made trouble. They insisted on “now” and not “waiting for later”. They broke the law. They got people angry. It was a movement driven by emotion, not logic. Crazy old women were prominent in it. Eventually their arguments led to widespread violence on a national scale.
They were all-but-batshit crazy.
Yet in the long run of history, the Abolitionists were right, weren’t they?
Sailboat