Animal Rights fraggles hit a new low.

[munkeeunit]

Gotcha. What I said here then? http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4973565&postcount=57

Yes, the best approach, IMO, is to challenge culture and to look to economic solutions to scarcity (a daunting task in itself).

I am in favour of treating animals with a far greater degree of respect than is currently the case. I'm not a vegetarian, but as far as my income allows (which is very low) I try to buy meat and dairy products which is either organic or ethically reared.

I don't always stick to that, but try to stay within my own moral code as a meat eater, and feel uncomfortable with myself when I don't.

EDIT: Regarding the road kill deer, for example, I felt it better to eat the animal that had been (presumably) released by activists, and killed in a cold lonely death by a passing vehicle, than to just let it rot on a roadside.

 

[Rune]

I haven't been paying so much attention recently, but as I understand it, women are still - on the whole - not men.

Sorry, don't understand what you're getting at.

 

[Rune]

EDIT: Regarding the road kill deer, for example, I felt it better to eat the animal that had been (presumably) released by activists, and killed in a cold lonely death by a passing vehicle, than to just let it rot on a roadside.

Personally I don't have a problem with roadkill. Just as long as you didn't spend 10minutes making it roadkill


Not all deer are released. Some of them do live naturally in the countryside.

 

[mauvais]

Sorry, don't understand what you're getting at.

You're comparing the two groups. AR nutters are anti-human, which makes no sense, cos they are - sometimes - human. Feminists are anti-men, but this does make marginally more sense, because they are not men. There is surely no comparison?

 

[munkeeunit]

Personally I don't have a problem with roadkill. Just as long as you didn't spend 10minutes making it roadkill


Not all deer are released. Some of them do live naturally in the countryside.

Yes, it just seemed to coincide quite closely, in time and vicinity, with a release of deer by activists, but I forget the exact details. May have been 'normal' roadkill. Some activists, of course, don't even think we should have roads. Preseumably if we didn't have roads, they would object to train lines too, or any form of human mark on the countryside.

Which is both the downward spiral into primitivism, as well as a complete failure to take responsibility for the clumsly backfiring of some of their own actions.

 

[Rune]

You're comparing the two groups. AR nutters are anti-human, which makes no sense, cos they are - sometimes - human. Feminists are anti-men, but this does make marginally more sense, because they are not men. There is surely no comparison?

No, I compared some of the people in the two groups. I didn't say that all AR are ant-human or that allf eminists are anti-men. Only that some of them are.

 

[Rune]

Some activists, of course, don't even think we should have roads. Preseumably if we didn't have roads, they would object to train lines too, or any form of human mark on the countryside.

Which is both the downward spiral into primitivism,

True.

Though my little paranoid head is starting to think to itself that at some moment you're going to say "aha, if you agree with all that, then what about..."

as well as a complete failure to take responsibility for the clumsly backfiring of some of their own actions.

I'm sure that there are some who will always blame the cardriver for running into wild animals.

 

[munkeeunit]

True.

Though my little paranoid head is starting to think to itself that at some moment you're going to say "aha, if you agree with all that, then what about..."

No, there's a point at which I will object to these activists being attacked. For the most part I admire these people, but I believe the anti-human attitudes within it have to be challenged head-on, and driven out.

(And if they try and dig up my gran for saying that, they should be warned that she was an Irish battleaxe of the most vociferous variety, and would probably claw their eyes out even from the grave )

 

[Rune]

No, there's a point at which I will object to these activists being attacked. For the most part I admire these people, but I believe the anti-human attitudes within it have to be challenged head-on, and driven out.

(And if they try and dig up my gran for saying that, they should be warned that she was an Irish battleaxe of the most vociferous variety, and would probably claw their eyes out even from the grave )

Wouldn't fancy my gran being dug up either. But then she's been cremated

 

[ska invita]

There seems no logic in it, its not action taken as part of a war of liberation ie Ireland (yes I know that point is debatable ), its not violence used in desparate self defence as in things like the Warsaw Ghetto uprising or the Palestinian Intifada it is just violence and threats of violence as grandstanding.

Its completely logical - digging up that women was the move that clsoed down the guienea pig factory - the one thing it is is logical -just the morality is questionable.

However, if you take an animal life to be equal to a human life, then their actions make a lot of moral sense too...

Its out of order, but makes plenty of sense to me.

 

[Azrael]

Not to me.

I can understand vegetarianism well enough. Even allowing that animals kill and eat each other with joyful abandon I appreciate the argument that we should be above that. Ditto that deliberately breeding animals to kill and eat isn't the same thing as leaving nature to take its course.

I'm a dedicated carnivore, but I get it.

In contrast, the concept of "animal rights" is the most absurd oxymoron. Rights and responsibilities share a symbiotic relationship. (Ie, the right to life depends on people agreeing not to kill one another.) Animals have no concept of right and wrong. Animals live to kill, eat, fuck and sleep, roughly in that order. They are not moral beings. They cannot have rights.

That does not mean we should be cruel to them. We are moral beings. But it does mean we shouldn't project moral standards onto insentient creatures. Killing and intimidating our fellow humans in their name drags this misguided anthropomorphism to its loonspud extremes.

 

[danny la rouge]

I'm a vegetarian. But I think these people who dig up grannies, and phone parents to say their kids deserved to die are anti human and beyond understanding. They are filth.

 

[Mallard]

At least the AR loonies actually do somthing instead of moan on and on, unlike some so-called radicals who do sweet F.A, except argue over the make of trotsky's ice pick

A fair point. I don't agree with a some of what they do but they're an easy target for the knee jerk brigade. If only a loony had icepicked him before Kronstadt the world would have been a happier place

 

[Fuchs66]

Its completely logical - digging up that women was the move that clsoed down the guienea pig factory - the one thing it is is logical -just the morality is questionable.

However, if you take an animal life to be equal to a human life, then their actions make a lot of moral sense too...

Its out of order, but makes plenty of sense to me.

In the short run maybe it achieved something BUT in the long run it exposed those who carried it out as being a bunch of fanatics with dodgy morals and did extreme damage to the AR movement as a whole. Through this action and similar more ammunition was handed to those on the other extreme of the argument and a whole lot of people who sympathised with AR were scared off. It's out of order and makes no sense what so ever.

 

[Rune]

They are not moral beings. They cannot have rights.
.

What is a moral being?

 

[fishfingerer]

Are they really that nutty or are they riddled with cop provocateurs.

 

[danny la rouge]

Are they really that nutty or are they riddled with cop provocateurs.

Sadly I think they're really that nutty. But your suggestion is always a possibility.

 

[Azrael]

What is a moral being?

A creature capable of understanding an abstract concept like morality. A creature that doesn't act purely on instinct.

 

[Rune]

A creature capable of understanding an abstract concept like morality. A creature that doesn't act purely on instinct.

I'd assume for your arguement, that when you say creature, you in fact mean a species.

 

[Azrael]

Yes.

And while I realise there are some humans incapable of appreciating or understanding morality, it's a rare situation, and no reason to abandon a perfectly good criterion.

 

[Rune]

the right to life depends on people agreeing not to kill one another.

No, it doesn't. My rights depend on what I am. A sentient being. Being granted those rights depends on others allowing me to enjoy them. Just because someone kills another, does not take that right to life. It violates the right, yes, but does not take it away.

Animals have no concept of right and wrong. Animals live to kill, eat, fuck and sleep, roughly in that order. They are not moral beings. They cannot have rights.

Irrelevant. Being amoral does not mean that they do not have rights. Your arguement rests on the supposition that rights belong to a species. They don't. They belong to the individual.

But it does mean we shouldn't project moral standards onto insentient creatures.

Our moral rights are not projected onto insentient beings. The beings we're talking about are sentient

Killing and intimidating our fellow humans in their name drags this misguided anthropomorphism to its loonspud extremes.

Agreed

 

[Azrael]

No, it doesn't. My rights depend on what I am. A sentient being. Being granted those rights depends on others allowing me to enjoy them. Just because someone kills another, does not take that right to life. It violates the right, yes, but does not take it away.

Never suggested it did. But the person who violated your right to life will be prosecuted for murder for disregarding society's moral framework. The key point is that they had the ability to restrain themselves and chose not to.

Irrelevant. Being amoral does not mean that they do not have rights. Your arguement rests on the supposition that rights belong to a species. They don't. They belong to the individual.

Don't really see the purpose of that distinction

Our moral rights are not projected onto insentient beings. The beings we're talking about are sentient

Chambers has "sentient" as beings who are self-aware, but to save on semantic argument, animals (with the possible exception of some sea mammals and great apes, but Richard Dawkins can fight that one out) lack the higher brain functions humans possess. So long as they lack self-awareness and act purely on instinct they do not and cannot have rights.

 

[Wilf]

sorry to be so jaded, but i've seen so many versions of this debate on here before. Its so irritating that what could be an interesting discussion ends up merely dealing with either daft assertions or assumptions that a nasty minded minority represent the core of AR. Specifically:

1. Lets be clear - the vast majority of people in favour of any kind of AR regard granny digger uppers et al as twats. they are counter productive and are seeking to exercise power in the most spiteful way - the very thing that AR is against within its core arguments. The people who did the intimidation mentioned in the original post are vicious and probably exhibit cult like characteristics in their belief that they are on a 'mission'. AR to me is about discussion, publicity and debate. It can also be about direct action - even illegal stuff - but not violence or elitist terror tactics. IN the end its about a belief that inflicting pain and, ultimately death - by one species onto another - is fundementally wrong.

2. All the stuff about 'oh, if you belive in AR, you must thing that elelphants should have the vote'. FFS! The notion of 'rights' is about not eating them, not using them in experimentation, maintaining habitats etc.

3. Ditto the point about comparing animal lib to women's lib - 'oh, you are saying that women are the same as animals'. Again, FFS! NO - its another form of comparison entirely. There are parallels in the way that the powerful have regarded women and slaves in the past with the way that society treats animals now - as property. Thats the point of comparison.

4. To Azrael - on the more serious point about rights/reponsibilities + that only moral agents can have rights. Well, certainly those ideas have been central to debates within liberalism about the allocation of civil/political rights. However they are not the totality of that debate. for instance we don't say that babies - who certainly have no idea of rights and reponsibilities - should be regarded as beyond the scope of rights. Similarly those in a persistent vegetative state or with serious alzheimers type conditions - should they lose the rights that you define as being based on ability to understand and make moral choices?

Might add i thought your division of behaviours into 'logical' and 'instinctive' was dodgy to say the least.

5. The idea that being pro-animal = being 'anti-human'. Thats just bunkum as a concept. Certainly, you could find scenarios where specific groups of ppl would be harmed if they were no longer able to kill animals - particularly in poorer regions. However I would argue that a move towards vegetarian diets and preserving habitats would in practical terms be rather good for humans. These however are practical and strategic issues - not some daft idea that to be against animal suffering automatically makes you 'anti-human'. [To be honest i may be flaming away at non-existent targets here. In my brief scan of this thread i wasn't sure if AR ppl were being accused of being 'anti-human' or 'anti-humanist'. Both accusations are sometimes made. If it is the latter - yes, guilty as charged, I am certainly anti humanist.

[as a side issue, i would admit that the concept of 'rights' is problematic - though not in the way suggested by its opponents on this thread. The discourse of rights looks towards the state and assumes the state validly makes societal rules/values. As a libertarian i don't believe that, so prefer the term 'animal liberation']

 

[Rune]

Never suggested it did. But the person who violated your right to life will be prosecuted for murder for disregarding society's moral framework. The key point is that they had the ability to restrain themselves and chose not to.

Yes you did, here.

the right to life depends on people agreeing not to kill one another

My point is that whether or not someone denies me the enjoyment of that right, I still have it.

Don't really see the purpose of that distinction

The distinction between the species and the individual is important because some humans are amoral and yet we afford them rights. Young children or those afflicted with dementia for example.

Chambers has "sentient" as beings who are self-aware, but to save on semantic argument, animals (with the possible exception of some sea mammals and great apes, but Richard Dawkins can fight that one out) lack the higher brain functions humans possess. So long as they lack self-awareness and act purely on instinct they do not and cannot have rights.

Lots of lower animals have a self awareness. Dogs, cats,cows, pigs. The lower the animal the harder it becomes to decide if they are self aware. They may not have the brain functions that humans have to a higher degree, but they do to a lower.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

When you believe in AR (specifically that animals shouldn't be killed and exploited by people) , then to "agree to disagree" is in effect saying "I am happy to stand by respectfully while you advocate the torture and killing of millions".

Do you "agree to disagree" on the death penalty?

We're not talking taxation and immigration here - this is life and death!

Sort of like with anti abortionists.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

What about the right to be able to lead their own lives?


You mean that we can't expect animals to respect the rights of other animals? If so, that is true. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't.

What if a bear wants to eat you?

Whose rights should win, and why?

 

[Rune]

Sort of like with anti abortionists.

Your point being what?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

As it is I believe in extending protection to great apes and dolphins, but not on the tautolgy of rights, but because they are self conscious creatures, they experiance pain and suffering in a way much more meaningful than an ant or duck. .

Turns out that dolphins are thick as a fence post.

Sort of makes a mockery of all those people communing with these intelligent creatures etc.

 

[Rune]

What if a bear wants to eat you?

Whose rights should win, and why?

I think the bear would win. But I'd rather it didn't.




But assuming you're being serious. I have the right to live. That means I can defend that right.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I agree with all of this, except that it's impossible for a cow to bugger a milk-maid.

That's true, because a cow is female. It doesn't have a penis.