HUNTING: The Cruel Sport of Depravity

Status
Not open for further replies.
sabro said:
As to the "what gives you the right" question... you cannot logically answer that.

Of course you can`t, because the right to exploit beings, causing them pain, misery, and death , does not exist. For survival, yes -- for profit, comfort, convenience, laziness -- no.

Nothing and everything.

You are right about the first part. The second half though, makes no sense. Are you going zen on me? Makes me think of verbal masturbation.

Like I said, not prohibited by law,...

The law is not an indicator of what is ethically right. Law often lags behind the granting of rights. Look at that in history and even when something was legal -- we can still confidantly say it was wrong and that people of that time were wrong to do such a thing. Social change often goes against/breaks the law before the law is adjusted.

... not against my religious code...

lol. Personal religious codes do not guide what is right. I am sure there are some religious codes that do or have had practices that are not right. Would be a sorry world if people justified their actions by what their religious codes were. Almost too scary to even think about.

...not against my code of ethics (as it does not violate the Golden rule),

Sorry, it does violate the Golden Rule. You just don`t recognize it. Besides, you underscored my point on that with the mother you polled in which she said to her child in the rabbit kicking scenario, "What is wrong with you?" Remember?

Btw, I`m still laughing about your poll. Hilarious. Particularly how it backfired.



... conforms to my culture and traditions.

Cultures and traditions are not guideposts of right action and ethical rights emanating from them. Examples have already been given. Again, look at the logic of what "x" and "y" you place into the constructs. Logic is consistant, it doesn`t change with the values inserted.

I give you these and you argue back against them. Therefore I don't even have the right to eat a carrot: Just because it is legal, traditional, and does not violate my religious code does not make it right...after all clitoral mutilation fits all those parameters in Somalia. STV: this is not logical argument. It is the classical straw man tactic.


Sorry, Sabro, it is you introducing the "carrot" which is a the diversion and "straw man" tactic. The argument against hunting is based on exploitation of creatures that feel pain and are capable of suffering. The ability to suffer is what cuts across all organisms with a central nervous system. Therefore, that is the total of the group which is subject to the argument and their experiences as members of the animal inhabitants of this world are comparable and fair play as analogical models to illustrate logic or the lack of logic in any given argument.
 
sabro said:
They [[ the arguments of Strongvoicesforward] are based entirely on an emotional premise that centers around ascribing human feelings, emotions and value to animals.

And which emotions do you think animals don`t have? You will have a mountain of ethologists to go against when it comes to denying emotions to animals.

As for basing arguments on "emotion" for hunting, or on any aspect of exploitation of animals, it is the emotional joy of killing an animal for sport, the emotional joy of killing an animal to wear its skin for fashion and conceit, etc...

Perhaps you are underrating the "emotion" part a little too much and not giving the proper weight to the ugliness of the joy garnered through targeting an animal for death to get something from it that really is not a necessity to have.



They ignore every point both Mycernius and I have brought up by giving logical fallacies and strange analogies.

No, Sabro, you have NOT been addressing logic. You have just been repeating the fact that animals aren`t human and are not the same as us. The thing is you are ignoring all the traits the animals share with us that lends us to see their sufferng. You still have not reconciled the backdrops of history in which systems have caused suffering and how they were defended with the same logic that permits and forces suffering upon animals.

Of course, you can continue to crow that they are not the same as us, but that argument has not been deterring many from joining the AR orgs that are calling for change in our relationships with animals.

 
sabro said:
Can you give a simple one paragraph response without making a strange analogy to slavery, human sacrifice or body piercing, attacking hunters as unskilled drunks, or taking the "how would you feel if it was you..." jump in logic to the simple question: Why is hunting wrong?

lol. Sorry, Sabro, but an opponent in a debate never gets to control his/her opponents supporting arguments. Why do you think they do?

Like I told you before, all those examples remain for you to grapple with. You still have not addressed the logic or nonlogic which they are founded upon. Animal exploitation does not exist in a vacuum. The backdrop of history is connected to everything.

I have already told you: Hunting as a sport and where it is not necessary is wrong because exploitation/killing for pleasure is wrong. That is supported in different aspects by the examples which you referred to above which I had thrown out to you to explain the logic of -- which you have not done yet.

Merely saying they are not human or human life is more valuable than animal life is not the point. To cause suffering is wrong, and most normally functioning people have an inate sense to not want to cause it and to avoid it or stop it when they see it, whether it be human or non-human which is the victim of it. Whether someone is complicit in that as a consumer far removed from the place where the suffering occurs is a different part of the equation.

"Value" is not the point either -- for the importance we attatch to our species is one from our vantage, and not a universal one. There is no evidence that says animals were specifically created for us to do with as we wish or proof of an entity that says we can.

"Value" is also defective because some humans value other humans less and therefore would also like to exploit them. "Value" is not a benchmark to measure by. "Value" can only be justified in one`s interest to win out in a personal event in which survival is a pressng matter of a particular moment when another being is trying to deprive you of your right to life. Then, you have the right to value your right to survive in the face of the other trying to deprive you of that life/right.

 
Mycernius said:
I have no objections to vegetarians and I will cater for them if they visits. Why they don't cater for me is a different matter?

They don`t cater to you because doing so would mean they would have to violate the ethics that they believe to be true that exploiting animals is wrong. You don`t object to catering to them because you do not view doing anything to vegetables as wrong. In your mind, you are not put in a situation in your kitchen preparing something that calls into play questions about ethics. However, remember, they do find themselves in that situation.

Would you want them to violate their beliefs in their ethics to cater to you?
 
Mycernius,

Your post #127 was pretty good, and I did address it just briefly above. However, it didn`t relate to hunting very much so I have not addressed it in its entirety. I know the last part of it was probably referring to pest invasive species, but I have already addressed that above, so I didn`t see a need to repeat myself in detail.

Would my solutions bring the world to ruin like you said? That is conjecture on your part. The world hasn`t come to ruin yet, has it -- and believe me, there has been a lot more tinkering and screwing up with the world in all these hundreds of years before me, that I think my ideas would not make it any worse. In fact, I think they would aid it. But in the spirit of fairness, that, too, is conjecture.

The only difference is, my plan would be the more costlier one in monetary terms. But, perhaps we need some practice in learning how to clean up after ourselves with some punitive costs so that we know the financial bite of screw ups. Screw ups should be painful. Those are the ones we learn from and whose lessons stick with us more. We are more likely to repeat stupidity when the costs are little or not punitive enough. A little pain goes far in creating future modifications of behaviour.

That is not "black and white" which you seem to be fond of saying. Just deciding to kill something for convenience is the more "black and white" of the two options.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
They don`t cater to you because doing so would mean they would have to violate the ethics that they believe to be true that exploiting animals is wrong. You don`t object to catering to them because you do not view doing anything to vegetables as wrong. In your mind, you are not put in a situation in your kitchen preparing something that calls into play questions about ethics. However, remember, they do find themselves in that situation.

Would you want them to violate their beliefs in their ethics to cater to you?

Potatoes have feelings too...I don't think that we should harvest those poor potatoes just for our enjoyment...who will join me in this movement? :(
 
CC1 said:
Potatoes [you are not my old buddy Dan Quale, are you? He had a penchant for talking about potatoes in public places. I think he had a special fondness for them.] have feelings too...I don't think that we should harvest those poor potatoes just for our enjoyment...who will join me in this movement?

lol!

You just may be able to create a movement. But, I am sure yours will be hundreds of years behind the AR movement. Start campaigning and get in line, CC1.

But, if you don`t mind, I would like to keep the thread on track about hunting. It has already meandered off that topic from time to time about vegetarianism, fur farms, and invasive species. It is hard to keep it on topic as it is with other animal issues on the periphery, let alone Mr. Potato Head crowding in.

So, if you could afford me this favor, I would prefer that you make a new thread for your "Potato" campaign. Fair enough?

But thanks all the same for the injection of some humor to lighten it up a little.

But, please do feel free to jump in with your thoughts on hunting. Perhaps you will have something new or a different perspective to add, or a different argument.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
They don`t cater to you because doing so would mean they would have to violate the ethics that they believe to be true that exploiting animals is wrong. You don`t object to catering to them because you do not view doing anything to vegetables as wrong. In your mind, you are not put in a situation in your kitchen preparing something that calls into play questions about ethics. However, remember, they do find themselves in that situation.

Would you want them to violate their beliefs in their ethics to cater to you?
Not all vegetarians are vegetarians because they do not like hunting or the explotation of animals. Some are vegetarians because they feel it is a better way of life for them. Some just don't like meat. I don't like pork, not because I feel for the the pig, I just don't like it. I have seen vegetarians eat meat when their is nothing else for them to eat. I know one vegetarian who does not like cats. In fact she has regularly said that if it was acceptable in this country to eat cats she would eat cats. But if I visit her house I do not get a choice. I know vegetarians that will kill animals, work in the meat industry and even in slaughter houses. How am I violating their ethics?
While I do agree that some hunting is pointless and a waste of time. A man waiting for bambi to show up, shoot it and take its head as a prize is stupid and goes into the same catagory as "my cars is bigger than yours", but it is human nature. But there are some hunters than will trap and kill bambi and then take it home a butcher it and use it. They are not putting money into the farms that produce beef, chicken etc. Instead they are taking what they need, just like our ancestors. You live in a country where people can live in isolation from the rest of the world. They could live in towns and buy their meat from Sainsbury or Tesco, but they want to be more with nature. They gather and hunt what they need. To be free of our world. Would you deny these people this? Would you lock people in a cage and deny them their instincts, while letting animals follow thiers?
In fact I will put money down that if you were put in a survival situation you would hunt, trap and kill. Ethics go out of the window in a survival situation. You'll shake your head at this going "no I won't", but when it boils down to it your life is more important than any animal, especially when faced with starvation. Like it or not man is a predator, only our intelligence lets us make a chioce, but in certain situations that primitive side will come out, no matter how many times you try to deny it. Surely even you have got angry enough to want to hurt someone.
 
Okay, let me give this summarizing the argument thing another shot- and again correct me if I am wrong:SVF is against hunting because he does not accept exploitation of life for pleasure, comfort, or convenience. This is based upon some empathic connection with animal life. My basic argument has been that human life is inherently more valuable than animal life and that there is nothing wrong with this exploitation. (And I would add provided the purpose is not specifically to inflict suffering.) Is that accurate?

The carrot is not a strawman. It is a response to the unanswerable question: "Who gives you the right." If it is not law, tradition, culture, history or religion...how could one possibly answer the question? The counter question "Who restricts that right." is equally valid and equally unanswerable. Hence nothing that can't be argued gives me the right, and equally nothing restricts that right. (Nothing and everything is neither Zen nor mental masturbation- nor is it relatavistic ethics- unless you provide a single absolute universal standard that governs our behavior, it is the best answer I have.) Although a carrot generates nearly the same answers from the sources mentioned that a cheeseburger or side of vennison would, killing another person violates cultural, legal, traditional, historical and religious standards.

My wife and her co-workers thought the rabbit kicking question was quite funny. No one thought that kicking a living creature was okay, but all of them eat meat. I did not probe- I just asked them one at a time, "If you saw a boy kicking a live rabbit down the sidewalk, what would you say?" and universally they said they would tell the boy to knock it off. Not one volunteered that "how would you like if someone did that to you?" I'm certain that you can communicate that inflicting pain or torturing a living creature is wrong even if you dismiss the empathic substitution.

The other reason for the difference in our polling is how you ask the question- if you are leading the people to give a certain answer- I did not, and allowed them to spontaneously generate an answer, probing only if there response was laughter, "I don't know." or an indirect answer. The follow up question was "why?"
 
Mycernius said:
Not all vegetarians are vegetarians because they do not like hunting or the explotation of animals.

That`s right. Sorry. When I had read and answered your post, since this thread's argument from my point was one of ethics, I thought you were giving your friends' situation as one that matched this thread's main point.


While I do agree that some hunting is pointless and a waste of time.

We agree. Whether it is some or most, is up for debate.

They are not putting money into the farms that produce beef, chicken etc. Instead they are taking what they need, just like our ancestors.

Factory farming is the worst, which I clearly stated before. But both are exploitation and neither is really needed in our modern societies or even in the many rural areas.

"Just like our ancestors" however, is a strange phrase to use. Sure, nutritional needs harvested are the same. But, method of harvesting is indeed no where near like how our ancestors did it. And which ancestors are you referring to? Whichever sub group you choose will be an arbitrary choice, won`t it? Our ancestors of 50, 100, 200, 300 years ago all had different methods/tools for huntng and therefore the chances of animals not being killed as they are pitted against hunter/man also differed.



You live in a country where people can live in isolation from the rest of the world. They could live in towns and buy their meat from Sainsbury or Tesco, but they want to be more with nature.


"Wants" do not make it right.


They gather and hunt what they need. Would you deny these people this? Would you lock people in a cage and deny them their instincts, while letting animals follow thiers?


If there is no need to cause killing and suffering, I cannot condone it. If it were preventable, then I think it should be prevented. There is nothing about locking people up in cages just by not permitting them to hunt.

Animals need to follow their urge to hunt in order to survive. After all, they can`t go to the supermarket and buy their food, can they? Humans can do that.


In fact I will put money down that if you were put in a survival situation you would hunt, trap and kill. Ethics go out of the window in a survival situation. You'll shake your head at this going "no I won't", but when it boils down to it your life is more important than any animal, especially when faced with starvation.

Mycernius, no where in this thread have I ever said that hunting for survival was wrong. In fact, I think I referred to some isolated places in the Arctic or the Amazon where it is a necessity. Those now are places that are not the norm of modern life. They are anomalies. Remember, this thread topic is referring to sport -- not hunting as a need to survive.

If my plane crashed in the Sahara, and I knew for a fact that thousands of hot desolate sand stretched out before me in either direction, and two lone camels walked by, and I was on the verge of loosing all strength to continue my life, I would kill one camel to survive and consume it. Consuming life, even animal life, for survival in severe situations is indeed justified.


Like it or not man is a predator, only our intelligence lets us make a chioce, but in certain situations that primitive side will come out, no matter how many times you try to deny it.

Exactly Mycernius! "Certain" situations dictate when it is justified. Not enjoyment for a sport or just wanting to obtain pleasure by living in the mountains because we choose to. That is exploitation based on pleasure. AS our inteligence, like you said, lets us make a choice, it also lets us to recognize respect for life based on ethics and to understand that taking life should only be when it IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to continue our life in a battle with nature in nature just as a wolf would have to do.
 
sabro said:
Okay, let me give this summarizing the argument thing another shot- and again correct me if I am wrong:SVF is against hunting because he does not accept exploitation of life for pleasure, comfort, or convenience. This is based upon some empathic connection with animal life.

Is that accurate [position rearranged]?

Yes, Sabro, that is basically it. That is The Movement`s basic position. However, the empathetic connection to non-human animal life is a real one and is only subverted when in a survival situation, or when life has been commodified by pleasure (i.e. hobbies) or economics.


My basic argument has been that human life is inherently more valuable than animal life and that there is nothing wrong with this exploitation. (And I would add provided the purpose is not specifically to inflict suffering.)

And I reject that argument as false because "value" is from a human perspective and that implies that the world was made for us with us at the top, and furthermore, there is no proof from a universal sense that humans are more important than animals. That is a belief based on speciesism, just as the logic of racism dictated that the lives of Whites were/are more valuable than blacks, or that Men are more important or have more inherant value than women and therefore only they should be able to vote.

But, valueing one thing over another does not mean it is permissable to exploit another. "Value" is not a license for exploitation. Like I said before, if value were a license, then people who value their race over that of another would be justified in exploiting that race.

Humans are animals. Placing a barrier between us and non-human animals is an arbitrarily placed barrier that is not justified by anything other than the proffits we gain from exploiting them. It is only the fear of losing that profit that stands in the way of breaking that barrier down. But that fear is the same fear that resisted breaking barriers down between races amongst our own race.

Extending the concept of rights should be done because no being that can feel pain wants to suffer, and all that do feel pain want that relieved. If we have the ability to relieve suffering, our desire not to be in the same situation, calls out to us to want to relieve that. Even though we may not act on that, our repugnance at suffering causes us to look away from it, to shield our sensibilities from it.

Furthermore, if an action targets an animal to get something from it so that one profits in someway and suffering is a result, then it, too is wrong. This would include things such as sport hunting, factory farming, fur farms, trapping, etc....
 
Sabro: The carrot is not a strawman. It is a response to the unanswerable question: "Who gives you the right." If it is not law, tradition, culture, history or religion...how could one possibly answer the question? The counter question "Who restricts that right." is equally valid and equally unanswerable. Hence nothing that can't be argued gives me the right, and equally nothing restricts that right.

I stated before, Sabro, a carrot is not part of the animal group. It has no sentience or consciouse. It does not share a central nervous system that lets us observe suffering and paine. The argument for AR is one based on not exploiting because exploitation leads to suffering and pain which are things we ethically should recognize as something we should not cause.

If you can find large amounts of studies and data and many researchers akin to ethologists in the plant realm that shows a carrot suffers and feels pain, has some sentience, a central nervous system that allows that, then maybe your carrot ruse would not be the red herring it is. Until then, it sticks out there as the strawman to just muddle the argument and act as a diversion.



Although a carrot generates nearly the same answers from the sources mentioned that a cheeseburger or side of vennison would, killing another person violates cultural, legal, traditional, historical and religious standards.


Yes, Sabro, and all those things you have listed are constructs of the human animal for the benefit of humans. It says nothing about humans from a universal perspective as having the right to grant himself extraspecial rights and deny them to non-human animals.

I explained before why all those reasons are not right for denying animals rights and keeping them in a perpetual form of tyranny and exploitation. You have not addressed the logic. Here they are supporting another terrible thing that perverted happiness in a culture of exploitation and fear:

A white lady marrying a black man violates cultural, legal, traditional, historical and religious standards.

Does that logic sound something you would like to keep wearing? Now please, address the logic, that which supports the construct.

 
FLASH: The first black bear killed in Rhode Island (?right state?) on the first day of the black bear hutning season was killed by an 8 year old girl.

Just heard that on The Daily Show. Sorry, didn`t catch the state, but it was an Eastern State. Wow! Lots of skill in this! I can just imagine her sitting next to a garbage heap or spreading the bait gunk to attract it. Doubt if she was walking miles over rough terrain stalking a bear.

Skill, skill, skill and an 8 year old girl. Yeah -- lots of skill.
 
Well then- there is the source- the immovable impediment is the fact that I do believe humans are different than animals. I "value" human life over that of any insect, fish, reptile, mammal or other primate. Certainly we are biologically part of the animal kingdom...and physiologically we do not differ.

But there is a difference that is not arbitrary-justified not only by our superior intellect or by our varried beliefs in a soul or spirit but also by our inherent psychological and social connection to one another. It is part of all of our religions, part of our cultures, traditions, history, and codified into our ethics, morals and laws. As clearly as the AR movement would like to erase this boundry is the fact that it exists in a large sociologically based context that is engrained and entrenched.

"Value" unfortunately is a license for exploitation. It is exactly how people do justify exploitation of another race. It is exactly how we excuse collateral casualties in Iraq. It ignores the fact that we are members of a single species. Race, however is a social construct not a biological fact (although Bossel can argue convincingly otherwise). Species is a definite biologically defined classification. Although I cannot justify a differing value in terms of race, I can in terms of species. I cannot justify racism, but valuing my species above all others is perfectly and soundly based.

There is nothing particularly wrong with fear as a motivator. I fear change for no real reason. I would say that I definitely fear losing my ability to eat the foods I enjoy. That I fear my life would become unnecessarily complicated and expensive. I fear that traditions and customs that have endured for centuries would be lost, and that the next medical breakthrough will never happen because the research is no longer practical. I fear our cosmetics could become dangerous in ways we can't predict, that our food becomes not only less available due to out of control of vermin, but less safe due to the lack of testing and vector control. I fear that we would make all these changes to satisfy a minority of humans for the wrong reasons, that they will be implemented with disaterous results and that the animal world will not be any better off. That as we break down our barrier between the more easily empathized with mammals, that we also get less willing to kill pests, to manage wildlife and that we sacrifice good science for sentiment. It seems an unacceptable risk to human life and our modern lifestyle based upon questionable assumptions.

I also fear a fringe movement dictating not only the vehicle I drive, but my recreational and entertainment activities.

Although this thread is in regards to hunting (which I don't do anyway). I do eat meat (mostly fish and chicken), dairy products and eggs, support ethical vivisection, go fishing, wear leather clothing, desire to control pests for food preservation and property protection as well as vector control, enjoy zoos (but not circuses). I support others who like me keep pets, and equestrians, ranchers and farmers. I own three 4x4's- although 2 of them are small, but my daily driver is an Insight- 70mpg. I have gone skiing in the past. I hope the AR "Movement" will leave me alone.
 
How do you know how much skill an 8 year old girl has? Now I have to go black bear hunting to determine if she was some kind of savant or just lucky. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102402024.html

So the carrot does not have sentience or conscience? How do you know? Several ancient cultures believe that every living thing has a spirit. What determines sentience and conscience? I'm not entirely certain that my pets are self aware or that they have the intellectual capacity to justify this classification. (And they are smart pets.)

"A white lady marrying a black man violates cultural, legal, traditional, historical and religious standards." Fortunately this is no longer true in my country. (See, this is the dookie argument- again designed to associate the struggle against racism with AR. Race is an artificial category, species is not.) How about "A white lady marrying her labrador retriever?" I wouldn't want to impose my "species barrier" on their love.
 
Not that I support 8 year olds skipping school to kill bears (which are trophy animals- you don't eat them) --I checked the Washington Post article: The bear wasn't baited or shot at a dump. It was cold and raining. She had to score 98 on a safety test. She hit the bear twice at fifty yards. The second time it was moving..."But hunters who came later, hauling bears of their own, were astonished by Sierra's feat of marksmanship -- usually bears will start to run too fast for a hunter to get off a second shot." So apparently she had a bit of skill. (The point of which, skill or no skill- is hunting right or wrong...I have lost. Rock skipping takes little skill, but we don't ban that.)

Your screaming colorful headline sized post is unnecessary and does nothing to improve your argument. (again, this point seems off topic.)
 
I like to shoot with a pistol in a shooting range (0.22 caliber mostly). I don't shoot animals since I don't like the feeling of personally killing a deer or a bird just for the fun of it.
I know many hunters, and some have tried to convince me into shooting with them, however, I have always declined.
I like shooting for "dead targets which have points" and just for the fun of shooting, not killing, as it trains my precision, posture, and simply for the competition – but a poor deer shouldn't be victim for my leisure time and because I happen to like shooting.

I don't have any problems of eating meat though, I couldn't live without chicken, since I love to eat chicken breast....I just don't want to kill them myself for the fun of it.....
What is very important to me is the welfare of the animals when they get slaughtered, so I don't mind continuing eating chicken, turkey, pork etc.,
 
Miss_apollo7 said:
I like to shoot with a pistol in a shooting range (0.22 caliber mostly). I don't shoot animals since I don't like the feeling of personally killing a deer or a bird just for the fun of it.

Shooting targets on a range. Fine. Causing misery for fun. Not fine. You have "right thought" on the matter.

I know many hunters, and some have tried to convince me into shooting with them, however, I have always declined.

Doesn`t surprise me. Depraved people always feel a little less guilty when they spread that guilt around a little. Knowing their world is one in which those who share their same sense of pleasure is growing smaller and smaller, it is not surprising they are trying to get more blood junkies.

Kind of reminds me of the teenager in an inner city project looking on a playground. Not content with letting the younger kids just shoot some b-ball and have fun doing what they enjoy, this dealer of misery goes over and tries to convince the kids to shoot up with him and join in on his activity -- an all too different kind of "shooting."

"There she is shooting those targets on the range. Hmmmm... Let`s try and get her to do our kind of shooting that takes an innocent life minding its own business not threatening anyone."


I like shooting for "dead targets which have points" and just for the fun of shooting, not killing, as it trains my precision, posture, and simply for the competition ?| but a poor deer shouldn't be a victim for my leisure time and because I happen to like shooting.

Well said, Miss_apollo7.

Hunters, however, need that coup de` grace. Those "sportsmen" just need to have bloodletting and take a life. I mean, a head hanging over a mantle, bonding, story telling, and bragging rights are all on the line. A bear`s life is definitely tradable for all those things.

And if a few animals get away with serious wounds to die miserable and painful deaths from gangrene, oh well -- just tough luck. Shouldn`t have been born a bear, Ms Bear. You have to pay for me being a bad shot or not being smart enough to stand still so I can take your life without screwing it up. Why, in the end, its all your falt. Surely not mine, because the law says I can do it.
 
sabro said:
This [the bolded following] is not a logical argument:

Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward

Why do you think that illegal civil action cannot be acts of protest? Don`t you think that the Sons of Liberty carrying out the Boston Tea Party was protesting and committing a crime? I do. Why don`t you think so? Would you wished that all of them and abolitionists and Polish Jewish partisen resistant groups had been caught by the legal authorities of their countries?

You are basing all your reasoning on arbitrary fondness for the status quo, and not on logic or with history as a background in regards to alleviating oppression and exploitation.


Sure it is (i.e. a logical argument). And your points below, which I will get to now in a few separate posts, have not explained why it is not logical. They only explain your opinion on what you feel is noble and which is not noble.

I asked you some specific questions. Why didn`t you answer them? I am wondering if you didn`t answer because the answers point you in the direction of logic.


By reaching for emotional triggers, you may convince yourself that you are "alleviating opression and exploitation," but most people with just a smidgen of critical reasoning can recognize it as hooey. You can't compare the Boston Tea Party, abolition or Jewish resistance to the Nazis to the sophomoric and criminal activities of Animal Rightists.

"Sophomoric"!? Kind of reminds me of egging a house or soaping car windows or toilet papering a house. Now you are hyperboling downward. You had better look at some of the direct actions taken by Animal Liberationists and that should show you they are anything other than "sophomoric," -- and are not considered so by their targets.

Again, criminal activity does not mean that activity is absolutely wrong. I know you don`t want to answer the questions above, because that would make you have to admit that criminal activity conducted in many movements to alleviate tyranny and oppression was, and indeed, is permissable and judged so by historians as rightly so. Your problem in refusing to answer the question is one of you being in the status quo and fearing the loss of priviledge you get from imposing your will on another individual. Logically, no different from history.

"Emotional triggers"??? -- Yes, those were all things struggles that were taxing emotionaly, and still so when remembered by many. Nothing wrong with bringing emotions into actions to garner support. In fact, emotions are the catalysts for all struggles. The status quo sure would like people to not get emotional, that way the establishment doesn`t go through any great turmoils of change. Cotton growers sure didn`t want abolitionists getting emotional about slaves. In fact, I imagine many of them could have beaten their slaves without getting emotional about it. Emotion is what is needed. Yes, hunters don`t want ARists getting emotional when they go out to do their fun (note: emotions of fun on thier side is acceptable) bloodletting. Fur farmers don`t want ARists getting emotional when they anally electrocute mink and chinchilla or snap their necks. Why, all those ARists getting emotional and getting other people emotional could be costly, couldn`t it?



1. It attempts to make the AR cause more noble by comparing it to noble struggles of the past. These people fought for civil liberties (for humans),for human dignity and for survival. This is an attempt at false parallel.


There is no attempt to make anything -- reason being: because it IS a noble cause to end tyranny and oppression of beings that suffer.

Humans are animals, too. You are arbitrarily separating them based on speciesism which lies on the same logic of racism and sexism. ARists are fighting for the dignity of life. They have not separated life into parts that are beholden to the god Profit.

The parallel is accurate. Your reason for saying it isn`t is one based on an arbitrary separation of man from animals based on your perspective of value, from which, as a part of the status quo, you profit from. Surely, a slave holder in 1855 would never consider an abolitionist`s actions/arguments as noble in any sense comparable to the Sons of Liberty and the Minutemen of the Revolutionary War. Like you, they, too, would call your parallels false.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

This thread has been viewed 110582 times.

Back
Top