Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • How comfortable does it make you feel to kill a chicken when you know that it did not want to die? On the other hand, there is no way to live without killing something... even washing and breathing kills bacteria.
    • Eh?

      If you are seriously trying to get people to go vegetarian or vegan with that attitude please stop. I've been an animal rights activist for the past five years and people like just make my job harder.

      Getting in people's faces and shouting at them will not ever convince them to think about the (im)morality of what they're doing. It just turns them off because the style overwhelms the message.

      When it comes to activism, style _is_ important, and yours sucks.
      • I have a question, and I don't intend to have an argument about it, I just want to know your opinion on the matter.

        I have long been an advocate for humane treatment of animals. How does this differ from the advocacy for animal "rights," if at all? Is there any distinction, even a semantic one, for you?
        • Yes, there is a definite distinction.

          What you describe is animal "welfare", which is a good thing, but doesn't go far enough, I believe.

          Animal rights means that I believe that animals, just like humans, have inherent rights, simply because they exist and are "subjects of a life" (to use a Tom Regan's term for it). IOW, animals, like humans, are conscious critters.

          When we talk about human rights we usually mean things like freedom of speech, freedom from harm by others, freedom to travel, etc.

          Obviously, to a certain degree my rights are limited by your right. My right do whatever the heck I want is limited by your right to freedom. So if "whatever I want" included locking you in my closet, then to a certain degree my rights are limited.

          When I talk about animal rights, the rights I am advocating primarily comes down to the right to live free from human interference. This is, of course, impossible to a certain degree. After all, if I want to live at a anything beyond the most primitive level, I must interfere to a certain degree in animals' lives (by building houses, generating electricity, etc).

          But inasmuch as it possible, animals should be given freedom. This certainly means the end of the use of animals for food, entertainment, clothing, and experimentation because none of these things can be considered at all "necessary" for human lives.

          I don't _need_ to eat animals, I can do just fine on a vegan diet. I don't _need_ to wear leather or wool, as plant-based fibers and synthetics are perfectly suitable. I don't _need_ to go to a circus with animals, or a rodeo, or the zoo.

          As for experimentation, we can probably agree that there is no _need_ for non-medical testing. You may argue that we _need_ medical testing, but I think that's stretching the word "need" well into the territory "want". But I do concede that many people would consider this a special case and would be willing to argue it separately.

          So given that we don't _need_ to do any of these things, the only reasons we would do them then are for pleasure (again, allowing for medical experimentation as possible separate issue). Is our pleasure worth more than the suffering of the animals involved? This is highly doubtful (the suffering is _immense_). Is it worth any amount of suffering? I don't think so, because I believe animals have rights.

          This is, of course, highly dependent on the fact that I live in a modern (post-?)industrial country. I can understand why someone would say that people in poorer countries _need_ to use animals in various ways. And I think the best way to improve animals' lives there would be to first raise the living standards of these countries and _then_ address the issue of animal rights.

          And this also doesn't address issues like Native American hunting practices, which for many Native Americans is a cultural and even spiritual issue and not purely an issue of pleasure (in the sense of recreation).

          So it's not like I can make a blanket statement about the way animals are treated.

          But I can say that I think that in modern industrialized countries like the US, we should stop doing pretty much _everything_ we are doing to animals in regards to food, clothing, and entertainment, and non-medical testing.

          The counter-argument to this pretty much presumes that animals don't have rights and more importantly, that their suffering is not important when compared to human pleasure. And I just can't buy into that.
          • Some quick points that I don't want to argue specifically, but want to throw out there for your consideration:
            1. You may not need to eat animals, but I do. That is, I need to eat meat more than you (or I) need electricity, from my perspective. This really isn't up for debate, unless you take the absolutist perspective that we should never impinge on the rights of animals, which you say you don't. You have a certain set of criteria whereby you determine that some things require electricity, and you are u
            • In response to #1, you have no _biological_ need to eat meat. That's what I meant by need.

              But yes, I don't need electricity based on that definition of need either. I don't think I said that I did, though. I _want_ electricity and I think it can be gotten without causing any significant harm.

              1. You improperly frame the issue as animal suffering vs. human pleasure, while there may be neither suffering on their part nor pleasure on ours. I think mentioning either one does disservice to your cause, as t

              • I think meat can be gotten without significant harm. Further, I do have a biological need for meat, because I can't eat most vegetables, let alone those fake meat products. They taste bad. So if I don't eat meat, I won't be healthy, because I will be severely malnourished. I very much do have a biological need to eat meat, and you are incapable of reasonably saying that I don't.

                And I did not say they are incapable of suffering, I said they are incapable of experiencing what we know as suffering. They
                • I think meat can be gotten without significant harm. Further, I do have a biological need for meat, because I can't eat most vegetables, let alone those fake meat products. They taste bad. So if I don't eat meat, I won't be healthy, because I will be severely malnourished. I very much do have a biological need to eat meat, and you are incapable of reasonably saying that I don't.

                  Well, this is one of the sillier statements I've ever seen when debating animal rights issues. What can I say? I think you're
                  • I won't respond to most of what you say except two things:

                    I can't eat most vegetables because they taste really bad to me. It's that simple. Am I capable of digesting it? Yes. But incapable of eating it. My cat is the same with many foods she is capable of digesting. You think it's silly? Tough nuts. It's my taste buds I am protecting, not yours.

                    Second, this: "I believe that animals should be free from suffering, and that human interference leads to suffering for animals. That's my case." Fine.
                    • Oh, and about vegetables, I thought I might be able to take them intravenously, but I have this thing about needles; I could take a pill, but then I don't get the roughage I so desperately need. Bah! I'm stuck requiring meat. Bring on the cows, Little Billy!
                    • Its not illogical, it simply comes from a first principle which you disagree with. My first principle, as stated, was that human interference with animals is unethical. Therefore, when given a choice (which we always are in this particular case, regardless of your culinary tastes), we should make the ethical choice, which is to not interfere.

                      As to whether or not you have an obligation not to eat animals. Of course you have such an obligation. Why would you think I believe otherwise? Just because my no
                    • As to whether or not you have an obligation not to eat animals. Of course you have such an obligation. Why would you think I believe otherwise? Just because my notion of rights is arbitrary doesn't mean I think yours has any validity, nor would I expect you to feel any differently.

                      What you expect is nonsense. Once again, you expect me to think that you're an immoral sap just because you think I am. I'm sorry that I can't oblige you. I actually don't expect anything of the sort. I expect different thi
                    • You have a rather bizarre position.

                      I think that ethics are basically arbitrary at a certain level, as are pretty much all beliefs.

                      But just because I believe that doesn't change what I want from others. Look, I think killing a person is unethical. That's an arbitrary belief.

                      But it is something that most of the people in this country agree with, and so we have laws forbidding murder, right?

                      And most people consider that a good thing. In other words, one particular viewpoint has been forced on everybody.
                    • But just because I believe that doesn't change what I want from others. Look, I think killing a person is unethical. That's an arbitrary belief.

                      But it is something that most of the people in this country agree with, and so we have laws forbidding murder, right?


                      Nope! In actual fact, we have laws forbidding murder because we have codified in our country's law the idea that it is not arbitrarily unethical, but that it is absolutely unethical, that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable righ
                    • Well, the fact that people decided this 200+ years ago based on what they thought doesn't make this any less arbitrary, does it? To illustrate: making a person of color property worth 3/5 as much as a white man is pretty arbitrary, but it was in the Constitution. (The fact that they used their religion to justify this doesn't make it any more or less true.) Fortunately, it was changed, too.

                      You're right that to compare in our law (as it stands right now) the killing of a an animal and a person is unreasona

                    • Well, the fact that people decided this 200+ years ago based on what they thought doesn't make this any less arbitrary, does it?

                      It does in the sense of why the law says murdering people is wrong, yes: in that it is not merely the opinion of a majority of people that makes it illegal, it is the very basis of our government that makes it so. If you take that away, then you take away the basis for the Constitution, which is to provide a government that exists to protect the rights of humans.

                      The Declaration