Discussions of the animal rights movement are far removed from the OP, but for humans to equate human rights with animal rights is ludicrous. With human rights in human society go human responsibilities, such as obeying laws, and I’ve yet to see one animal accept similar responsibilities. When bunnies, seals and bears start paying taxes, serving on juries and voting, and only then, will they have rights equal to human rights.
Tzel…
No, they’re just different. Just as humans are just different from cows or monkeys. The difference is that humans eat cows, and experiment on monkeys… the reciprocal is not true.
See? Just different. No good, no evil… just different.
And I like how you claim that others resort to “small minded name calling” when there is none (using the word “friggin’” to accentuate a point is not “name calling”).
Well, there are just as many 'wackos" on both sides. But SOME left-wing wackos go for the “non-violent” wackiness. Thus, overall they are less violent. But only somewhat less, not “non”, entirely.
tzen: PETA is a dangerous anti-animal org. They break into places, and let 'cage raised" happy well fed warm animals out to perish miserably in the outdoors, where they are not suited. Second, terrorism is ALWAYS wrong, no matter how “noble” the cause. 3rd, myself, and many others, have stopped donating to animal causes, as we refuse to support terrorism. So they are hurting the anti-cruelty cause, not helping. I have a big plaque from the Humane soc for my support, but I no longer support them, or any other aniaml group. So, just how is PETA good for animal rights?
And when an animal owes its very life to the fact it was raised to be used for food or fur, using it is not “wasteing it.” Now, I am very much against fur trapping, and had worked to stop it. But no longer, as I will not assoc myself with criminals & cowardly terrorists.
Daniel:
No, they do not. You’re thinking of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), a totally independent organization. If you want to complain about their actions, I’m right there with you, but don’t conflate the two. You’ve pulled this before, and I’m going to call you on it every single time.
Is this argument OK if I change it to “humans who were raised to be slaves”?
Nothing like a man of vision. :rolleyes:
SPOOFE:
I would say that causing unneccessary pain and suffering in beings capable of feeling it could be construed by a reasonable person as “evil.” You are free to disagree, but it is not an inherently unreasonable position.
**
It is ok if you put animals and humans on the same moral plane. I’d say anyone who puts humans and animals on the same moral plane are wacko. And it is only a matter of time before organizations like ALF or the Department of Justice (Based in Canada) end up killing someone.
Marc
I’d say anyone who takes infant chimpanzees and puts them in a tiny room with artifical “mothers” with milk bottle “breasts,” then causes scalding steam or sharp spikes to pop out whenever the infant seeks comfort with the “mother,” for no good reason other than to induce terror, is wacko. If that kind of thing is OK with you, I’d say you’re wacko.
I’m still waiting for someone to answer iampunha’s request for the definition of “animal” being used in this thread. I can only envision the falling-all-over-themselves being done to construct a reasonable definition that excludes human beings.
**
I’m cold and need something to keep me warm in the winter. Why not club a seal and use it’s fur? I need to hike over rugged terrain and must protect my feet. Why not use the skin of cows for protection? If I don’t eat then I die. Why not partake of the fleshy regions of the sow? None of these things seems particularly wacky to me.
I think the definition of animal being used in this thread is any creature which is not a human. Wow, that was easy and didn’t require me to fall all over myself.
Marc
What does that have to do with what I posted? Oh, wait–nothing. OK. Well, if you can’t address the argument on its merits and must perform hand-waving distractions, I can only assume you concede the point.
Actually you deviated first. I posted that people who put humans and animals on the same plane were wacko. You replied with a bunch of nonsense about mistreating chimps which had nothing to do with putting humans and animals on the same ethical plane. You could not address that point so I can only assume you can’t tell your ass from your elbow.
Marc
Oh, and here I thought that I was posting information on existing animal research to illustrate the idea that, in some instances, specifically the deliberate causing of unnecessary suffering in beings capable of feeling it, it is perfectly reasonable to approach all sentient beings on the same ethical plane. Here it turns out that the real problem is that you can’t read.
Whatever. 'Bye, Marc.
[hijack]
Actually, it’s Dutch. Ask Coldfire.
There’s no language called Native American. There’s Hopi, Navajo, Iroquois, Algonquin, and so forth. You might as well
say “bonjour” is European for hello.
[/hijack]
To address the thread, there are plenty of liberal wackos.
The Free Mumia crowd? Wackos
PETA activists in bunny suits? Basically good idea warped by poor tactics and lack of common sense.
Anarchists? Wackos
Anti-capitalists? Wackos
[quote]
Originally posted by jb_farley
I’d say that most of the people protesting at the WTO and in DC and here at the RNC were of the left persuasion. Wackos, I’d stake a bunch of money on, are pretty well distributed.
I think your premise is flawed.
Originally posted by Gadarene
I’d say that if your point is that anyone protesting at the WTO and in D.C. and at the RNC were likely to be wackos, then I think he’s not the only one whose premise is flawed.
[quote]
I live and work in the DC area, and the protestors I saw were a bunch of hippie wackos to a man(oh, sorry, person.
To address the PETA issue
PETA’s ideas of preventing cruelty to animals and promoting vegetarian diets are sound, but to claim that an animal is the moral equivalent of a human is ludicrous.
A cage-raised rabbit cannot remember its past, it cannot yearn for freedom, it cannot anticipate the future, it cannot plan or dream. A human slave can do all those things.
There is a quantitave difference in intellect and ability between animals and humans.
If PETA and the ALF are separate, why does Ingrid Newkirk praise the ALF’s activities in her official capacity?
PETA has lost sight of its purpose, and now it seems to think dressing like bunnies and dumping manure in front of hotels are more important than actually saving animals.
PETA has to persuade people, not talk down to them or anger them. For instance, PETA could show how freeing grain by not
raising cows would help feed people. They could point out the dangers of hormones and antibiotics in animal feed. They could point out the health benefits of a vegetarian diet. PETA has become too fond of street theater instead of using persuasion and reason to accomplish its goals. Dressing like Porky Pig might be fun, but it doesn’t save animals.
PETA has to make changes or be dismissed as a fringe outfit.
**
Well golly. Here I thought I was illustrating that what is necessary to some people might not be necessary to others. Some animal rights wackos seem to think that eating animals causes unnecessary suffering in and of itself.
Marc
Whatever. 'Bye, Marc. **
[/QUOTE]
I don’t disagree with your basic points, goboy, which is why I have not renewed my PETA membership in several years. They have a big image problem that they have to solve before I rejoin. And Ingrid Newkirk is part of it. (They do get some of my money – $3 – each month because I use their ISP, and I condone this mainly for their continuing educational and legal efforts.)
But . . . when you say:
First, I have to ask, why did you limit your response to “a cage-raised rabbit”? There is a quantitative difference between intellect and ability between individual humans, let alone between humans as a species and nonhuman species. I don’t think this is a significant enough criterion; and I do think that that quantitative difference is blurred in more ways every day. Especially among primates, and often with other species, such as elephants. The research I mentioned above regarding chimps should be soundly condemned by every reasonable person. To select the most human-like of the primates, then to take its infants and subject them to unspeakably cruel psychological and physical torture for little benefit . . . it sickens me.
Second, even if a rabbit, for example, is “cage-raised,” I don’t think anyone would deny that all animals contain a set of instincts regarding things that they prefer to be doing and things that they don’t. Indeed, many contain instincts governing things they need to be doing. To deny them those preferences in the name of human vanity is, IMO, unethical.
I don’t deny the basically omnivorous nature of human beings. I do deny and separate myself from the often unspeakable practices of the meat industry. I don’t deny the need of humans for clothing. I do accept that there are synthetic alternatives of which I can avail myself.
Back to the OP. There are wackos on both sides. Ronald Reagan was also the target of an assassination attempt or two. I remember seeing it on TV when I was pretty young.
HUGS!
Sqrl
I only used “cage-raised” rabbits as an example of a farm animal.
No question about the inhumanity(not to mention the scientific worthlessness) of the primate experiments; they(and the experimenters themselves) were just vile.
There is no question that primates feel, have social structures, and can think, albeit in a very limited fashion, but I’m not about to let them vote. They are related to humans, but they are still less intelligent than we are and they are not yet sentient beings, as we are.
That’s an excellent point, although some animals, chickens and sheep for example, are incapable of even having simple preferences.
Sorry to interrupt your animal rights debate but, Tzel said:
I do not see how it is sa superior position to want to change things that can’t be changed for people you have never met, and whose wishes you do not know. I do not trust anyone who purports to be working solely for the good of others. You do not know what I need. I am prety sure you do not know what a villiage in Zambia wants or needs.
I see the leftists as forcing their version of the way things should be on others. The right is usually fighting to stop others from imposing their will on them. it is governing peoples freedom vs. freedom from being governed.
What did Thoreau say? Something like “If I knew someone was coming to provide me charity, I would run.” I can’t remember the exact quote.
OK back on the OP.
There are no liberal “wackos” (if by wacko’s it is meant extremeists)
There are also no conservative "wackos"
Both of these are moderate idealogies that are at odds with extremism.
However, there are right wing and left wing wackos.
In the United States there are few if any left wing organizations that are willing to take human life. That is not true of right wing racist orgs. However, if you look at other countries (Peru, Columbia) you find left-wing extremists.
But oldscratch, why is racism part of the right wing? When I lived in Atlanta a virulently anti-white black panther shot 9 whites on Marta. I think that racism is quite a different issue than one’s political views. The Korean store owners who had their stores torched probably didn’t care that the instigators voted democrat.
I can see how reactionary right wingers might want to go back to a time before the equal rights movement, but I am not sure that the right wing holds the exclusive rights to racism.
Not now, but in the 1960’s, we had the Weathermen, and in the 1970’s we had the Symbionese Liberation Army and assorted Maoist bank robbers and bombers.
America is a conservative nation, so it’s natural we would have more right-wing fruitcakes lurking in Idaho, neo-Nazis and the like. Although in time the pendulum will swing back, and we’ll have long-haired goons holding up banks and kidnapping heiresses in the name of the people.
[quote]
I do not see how it is sa superior position to want to change things that can’t be changed for people you have never met, and whose wishes you do not know. I do not trust anyone who purports to be working solely for the good of others. You do not know what I need. I am prety sure you do not know what a villiage in Zambia wants or needs.
I see the leftists as forcing their version of the way things should be on others. The right is usually fighting to
stop others from imposing their will on them. it is governing peoples freedom vs. freedom from being
governed.
[quote]
While I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Z’s characterization of the Left, the Right is equally bad. As far as I can see, the Republican Party has abandoned the true conservative program of economic freedom. They seem bent on turning America into a South American style oligarchy where the American workers are corporate serfs. Tom DeLay, Jesse Helms, among others are the enemies of liberty, not its advocates.
Mr. Z has a valid point. Al Sharpton, for example is a racist who is welcomed by the Democrats. Democrats seem to turn a blind eye to hate speech spoken by a non-white, a point mentioned by John Leo in last week’s US News & World Report.
On the other hand, the Democrats, as a group, were the ones who passed civil rights legislation and led the way for progressive politics. Republicans put folks like Jesse Helms, a virulent racist, in positions of authority, and have consistently fought desegregation and civil rights at every turn. Republicans are not the friends of liberty.