Animal rights

No, that's actually quite a damaging view to take. Dogs and cats are not just dumbed-down humans, they are different animals entirely with their own instincts and their own ways of looking at the world. Understanding this is an important part of training your animals, and also an important part of animal welfare, because animal values are not human values.

I agree with you on the other points, though

edited 10th Aug '11 1:56:36 AM by LoniJay

Be not afraid...

For you Vellup, I do think animals do have souls (although I am uncertain about certain kinds, such as insects). You do not know how annoying whenever I bring this up with my religious friend, who tells me that only humans can have souls and no one else (in fact, she won't even entertain the idea that there may be sentient life outside earth that would would warrant having a soul despite the billions of stars of galaxies in the universe).

• I too think it's awful that extreme groups like Peta would condemn the ownership of pets and release them into the open where they have no chance of survival. I also think it is wrong to breed animals based on a certain characteristic that would harm their well-being and survival (for example back problems in dachshunds or nasal problems in persians) simply because they are appealing to you, yet killing those animals is equally inexcusable (for example, animals rights activists who objected to having a baby polar bear named Knut in the Berlin zoo being raised by humans and having it killed instead. kill the adorable polar bear cub, Knut, in the Berlin zoo who would have rather had it).
• What really grinds my gears are those commentators on youtube who condemn certain exotic pet owners and rail them to set their animals free, even though their reduced hunting instincts and dependence on their owners for care makes it unlikely they will survive in the wild for very long.

I'm surprised that this thread has been dead for three years.

First off, I am a firm believer that humans have no right to abuse or otherwise be cruel towards animals, both from a rational POV and due to my upbringing as a Muslim ^note In case you are wondering what my religion has to do with my stance, Islam has clear taboos against cruel or abusive behavior towards animals.. However, also due to the same factors, I define "abuse" and "cruelty" here as causing unnecessary suffering, which, from what I have read and seen, puts me squarely at odds with animal rights advocates who want to abolish all forms of animal use by humans, regardless of whether the actual suffering can be minimized without abolishing the practice itself.

So that raises an important question: If I am not only a non-abolitionist, but in fact opposed to abolitionism despite my belief in the broad concept of animal rights and welfare, then what does that make me? Is there an existing term for this position? I tried to look it up on Wikipedia, but it's not being helpful.

edited 12th Jan '15 4:12:49 AM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Animal welfare advocate, I suppose? There is usually a distinction made between animal welfare and animal rights. Animal welfare is more people like the RSPCA.

Be not afraid...

But it's noted that animal welfare and animal rights are not mutually exclusive, in that the former could serve as a stepping stone for achieving the latter as an end result. I guess "non-abolitionist animal welfarist" would be an accurate descriptor?

PS: Yes, "welfarist" (and "welfarism", by proxy) are apparently actual words, at least according to Wikipedia.

edited 12th Jan '15 4:44:19 AM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Well, some people say social democracy is a stepping stone to socialism, but you can be a social democrat and opposed to socialism.

So I don't see a need to add something beyond animal welfarist, unless there is a real need to it.

"You can reply to this Message!"

Well, if the animal welfarist is actively opposed to abolitionist-camp animal rightists, then it stands to reason that they would prefer to set themselves apart from animal welfarists who are either just personally ambivalent/uninterested in abolitionism, or openly sympathetic with abolitionism as an end goal even if they themselves don't actively pursue it ^note perhaps on the logic that once they achieve their goal, it will be the responsibility of the next generation to decide if more needs to be done, and ultimately if abolitionism is the right way to go.

edited 12th Jan '15 6:22:55 AM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Honestly, I am pretty confused why the topic of animal rights or ethical vegetarianism/veganism tends to evoke such strong hostility from people who disagree with it. I don't think I've seen a discussion about it that wasn't bogged down with that.

I beseech mods to not close this thread even if it has been dead for a while, for the subject is interesting. Anyways.

I think that the subject of abolitionism has an important element in that it is a group of people trying to legalize a behavior that has been prevalent in goddamn humanity for thousands of years. There is no stopping this force of nature. Lessening, or preferably stopping, all forms of suffering from animals even those meant for consumption? Yes. I am all for it.

Stopping anyone from eating meat? That is rather arrogant. Humans will not, cannot stop this behavior and no amount of legislation, or moralization will change the fact that animals eat other animals for food.

Myself, I am a vegetarian, however not by political statement. I simply do not like meat. I even eat meat that I like, but it is scarce. But I do not like hurting animals, in fact, I like'em.

Specially puppies. OHMYGOSHPUPPIES.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

has been prevalent in goddamn humanity for thousands of years. There is no stopping this force of nature

Stopping anyone from eating meat? That is rather arrogant. Humans will not, cannot stop this behavior and no amount of legislation, or moralization will change the fact

The same thing is true of drug use, but for some reason, whenever that same argument is brought up in favor of legalization, people will say "No that's not a valid argument, you don't get rid of laws because people are breaking them, if we did we'd rid of traffic laws, rape laws, etc."

edited 12th Jan '15 9:02:18 AM by CassidyTheDevil

I, for one, am personally in avor of drug legalization. Scandinavian countries have shown that, well handled, it eases up a lot of things.

Rape and murder, though? You are taking it too far. You are moving something that is done from humans to animals, or from humans to themselves, to one human to another.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

Umm, I didn't mention murder, actually. Regardless, I was simply repeating the common response that same argument gets in the area of drug use, not arguing that it's correct.

edited 12th Jan '15 9:06:57 AM by CassidyTheDevil

On a more on-topic note, what do you guys think of these critiques of animal rights listed here, as well as arguments in favor of speciesism (since the charge of speciesism is used by the animal rights movement in their arguments)?

@Cassidy: Off-topic, but... Are you saying that drug use has been around for millennia?

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

@Marq: Yep indeed. Longer actually, perhaps even before modern humans evolved.

Pfft. Philosophers talking about rights and utility like it is their area of expertise.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

Not all of the arguments are that complicated or convoluted.

Alternatively, what arguments against animal rights abolitionism that you know of would you consider as having merit?

edited 12th Jan '15 2:49:25 PM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

I am not quite sure I understand your question.

But if it helps a bit to explain it, I believe there are enough historical, economical, biological, and nutritional reasons why we should not abolish the consumption of meat. I can elaborate on each if requested.

That said I also believe we have an obligation to mantain the well being of animals, physical and emotional to the best of our abilities even if we are, indeed, eating them.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

Well, consider the fur trade. Animal rights abolitionists want the whole industry dismantled and made entirely criminal, with many even desiring to extend it to fake fur manufacturing (because it somehow undermines the shutdown of the traditional fur trade).

I would like that. It would help me flesh out the political/activist opinions of this one character that I have in one of my stories.

Oh, definitely. That's why am squarely in the pro-animal welfare camp.

EDIT: Yay, quotes are working properly again!

edited 13th Jan '15 4:49:46 AM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Finally. G Oddamn quotes things had me wondering what was going on...anyways...

Yeah full on prohibition of any goods has never, ever lead to anything good. Regularization of it from a well administrated government is actually more helpful.

Historical: Intrinsecally linked to a culture are its meals. One of the first things many tourists want to try of other countries is the food. Silliness of Polandball aside, is kebab not awesome? I dare you to try to tell an argentinian to get rid of their gauchos. What would the purpose of cowboys be? Good luck getting rid of Sushi in Japan. And I will eat my hat if you manage to convince the French to get rid of their wines and dishes as part of their culture.

historically you canot, will not remove food, and this includes animal-based food, out of people. It is a direct affront to cultural identity and not taking it into account when it comes to regulating the law fails the very purpose of the law: to regulate already regular human social activities.

Economical: Yeah. Good luck taking out Mc Donald's, the trade industry of meat without causing global collapse. This reason alone and the production of wheats grains and begetables worldwide compared to the meat consumed is enough to point out that, if we abruptly stopped eating meat we would basically have famine and poverty en masse, with crops barely being able to sustain human life.

Biological/Nutritional: Meat is a major source of protein. if everyone goes vegetarian then the only sources would be stuff like beans, tofu, eggs and some other stuff. It gets reduced even more if you are a vegan since that means no more eggs. Our bodies are accustomed to eating meat. Sure. We are not extremely picky about food like say, Pandas or Koalas, but a dietary change of such magnitude would bei mpossible to control save by the strictest dictatorial crimes, or the most magical, impossible way of A Wizard Did It

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

Quoteblock is working? Praise the lord!

Abolitionists represent a time amount of the animal rights movement, it's like taking the "we should shut down all electricity and live in trees" hippies as representativeness of the entire environmentalist movement.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

The same could and has been said about sexism. And racism. It's classical naturalization.

One that responds to biology and needs is, however, different from one that appeals to social constructs.

And even then, back in the days were civilization was scarce sexist and racist practices caused cultures and nations and civlizations to arise. In their time, they might have been necesary due to the lack of an established society and culture.

In our time, they are not.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

Nothing is just "necessary" it's always necessary for what. And no, sexism was never necessary for civilization. It was "necessary" to control female sexuality. Which never was a good thing.

Because if they would agree they would need to change their habbits. The horror!

Granted it is nothing but theories, but the fact we evolved from monkeys that themselves live in what we would consider "sexist" environments does arise the question of if it was, or not, necesary. Theories might point out that control was, at some point, necesary to the survival of cultures (see the Rape of the Sabines, Establishing patriarchal descendency lines, demonizing female deities, etc) that eventually grew into...us. Right here, right now.

And to us, now, those things of the past seem horrible and sexist. But we know them horrible and sexist because they happened in the past, and as such we can judge them more measurely and can veer away from them, or try to.

It is not an Appeal to Nature, more like an appeal to the evolution. Eating animals has always been a part of us in a fundamental way that we have not outgrown yet, as opposed to sexism or racism.

P.S: I read your typo as "having to change their hobbits" and now the fact theyare being taken to Isengard is stuck on my head

edited 13th Jan '15 10:52:40 AM by Aszur

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

The argument from evolution is Appeal to Nature.

It can in fact be argued that those monkeys live in far less sexist environments than we do (Bonobos for one) and that sexism is something that took hold with agriculture and animal husbandry. And isn't older.

And your examples are all "necessary" from men's point of view only. Humanity would have survived if the Sabines wouldn't have been raped. The Romans might not have. But they don't represent all of humanity. Or how exactly is patrilineal descendency necessary?