Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 174

Thread: Fighting Animal Exploitation/Cruelty

  1. #101
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan





    Hi MeAndroo,

    I`ll address your comments now. I have to take a break from TP since she makes it really hard for me to know what she is referring to with quoting me and not commenting in the appropriate breaks.

    By the way, thanks for breaking my quotes so that I know quickly and exactly what you are referring to.

    Quote Originally Posted by MeAndroo
    I've changed my consumption for health reasons already, but have no idea as to if/how what I eat suffers.
    Honest answer. Accepted.

    I think I was the same way about not knowing if animals suffered. After I began reading up on it I did learn about it.

    For something like animal welfare/rights, I'd probably have to see it.
    Yes, I understand. Some people have the need to see it. But, if you can`t satisfy that need by gettng access to a factory farm or slaughterhouse, literature or videos on it is the next best source.

    There are some good AR/AW books out there to read. Don`t know if you are interested, but if so, then let me know I could recommend one or two.

    After seeing veal farms, I stopped eating veal. I'm not saying just because I don't see something doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but it would certainly make more of a mark on me than biased rhetoric from either side.
    Good for quiting veal. Did you make that decision after seeing veal raised yourself, or was it after literature or media reports?

    I understand about the "rhetoric" you are referring to. The sides are deeply entrenched as it pertains to AR and animal industries. I would recommend more AW leaning literature in that case. Sure, they, too, are a little biased but not so much as against animal industries as ARists are. I doubt if you will ever find a truly unbiased well informed source on the issue. People are pulled to the issue because for the most part they have chosen sides and those are the people who are commenting on the issue and industries -- not someone or org who doesn`t care about it or not have some vested interest in it.


    "Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
    --Albert Einstein

  2. #102
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Do you believe that human beings are animals too just out of curiosity?
    Do you believe that keeping pets is another form of animal opression/slavery?
    What about keeping fish in a tank/pond?

  3. #103
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote:
    Strongvoicesforward: I would say that all activists, no matter what they are being active for, should never cross any line that our governement would not cross in the present or had not crossed in the past (if those past actions had never been condemned).

    MeAndroo:
    (a.) I think it'd be tough to find violent government actions that have never been condemned.
    (b.)You talk in your post about having a "practical philosophy," so I guess you'd call me an idealist, but I think when condemning a violent opponent, engaging in violent acts yourself is a bit hypocritical.
    (c.)I think non-violent resistance is a better option, but people can get impatient with legislation and trying to change people's minds.
    (a.) I am not sure I agree with you on that, MeAndroo. Sure, it is easy to violence always condemned by someone, but there is a lot of violence that is never condemned by governments even when they themselves perpetrated it. In fact they justify it and hold it up as good because they feel it was justified.

    For example: I never recall the U.S. government ever condemning the violent acts of our forefathers who destroyed the cargo of British tea moored in harbor. They felt right and compelled to inflict economic damage upon the British government (which technically was their government also) and compannies and transports that profitted from the tea.

    (b.) I don`t denegrate idealism. It is to be lauded for its goals. As far as strategy for action and active change is concerned, though, I don`t know if I could say it is appropriate, the best way, or the only way when tyranny is reigning over the victims that are dying or being tortured in gasly conditions by the billions. Surely the Polish Resistance fighters, the French Partisens, the Jewish Resistance Fighters and others as victims of institutionalized campaigns resulting in violence to them could not rely on idealism in the face of tyranny.

    I know people always put forth Ghandi and MLK as examples to follow in the face of injustice to a particular group -- however, it was not like those groups were ever so stripped of dignity that they were targeted in a way to completely strip them of a voice and make them victim to a corporate government machine that rendered them to death as a means of policy and profit.

    If support for the blacks in the North did not exist and there were not even a shred of decency or dignity at all whatsoever, I would venture to say it would be unlikely that a MLK campaign would have sprouted up or that it would have been permitted. Sure, there were many pockets and large swaths of territory in the south where blacks were ruthlessly persecuted, but they were not as de-voiced and de-powered and relegated to the status of animals are where their subjugation is governmentaly sanctioned and regulated to bring profit from their blood. If blacks would have been treated even worse than they were, I would muse to say that perhaps more would have found the more militant groups such as the Black Panthers more appealing. -- just some thoughts on it. Nothing that can be proven. But, animals are far lower on the scale of what they have been targets of as exploitation.

    (c.) It can be better if it shows that it is working. It may not always be the case that it bears fruit. When the urgency of the situation is such that millions of beings are dying per hour and billions per year, and as you say impatience is building, it is unlikely that those who are moved to stop the violence is going to do so peacefully indefinitely. If every mayor in the South in the 60's and every governor and even all Federal Reps as well as the President just decided to reverse everything and go back to abject exploitation, it is unlikely that blacks would have peacefully protested by walking back to processing areas for 'chaining." I could imagine the ensuing bloodbath that would arise.

  4. #104
    Hachiro
    Guest


    strongvoicesforward, I have one question for you, and there is no intent whatsoever to be sarcastic here as that is not the reason I ask.....

    Where exactly do you put humans in the food chain?

    Are you or do you expect that animal's should be treated with the same respect as human beings?

  5. #105
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Hachiro
    strongvoicesforward, I have one question for you, and there is no intent whatsoever to be sarcastic here as that is not the reason I ask.....

    Where exactly do you put humans in the food chain?
    Our intelligence allows us to be at the top. However, we have the choice now to choose our dietary practices and live long lives without causing pain, suffering or exploitation to other animals.

    Are you or do you expect that animal's should be treated with the same respect as human beings?
    We should treat animals with the equal consideration of interests. Just as I would not want someone to put a catheter in me, keep me confined, milk my organs for bile, I, too should reciprocate that by not forcing another being to undergo that which I would not want to be forced to undergo.

    It is about respecting the interests of animals which do not want to have their autonomy violated. We have the ability to extend that respect, therefore we should choose the choice that does not deliberately target and cause harm to another being for our enjoyment, pleasure, greed, or convenience.

    Just because we can do it does not mean we should. Might does not make right. If that were a working philosophy to embrace, then more intelligent or stronger people should be able to weild their recourses to enslave those who do not come up to their level. I reject the underlying philosophy that that would be built on. That is the philosophy for which many of the horrible things that are perpetuated upon animals. I do not accept "might makes right." "Might" merely makes things possible to do.

  6. #106
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by MeAndroo
    I can certainly understand opposing industries that abuse animals.
    Glad to hear that. Remember though, abuse can range widely. Would you understand proportional opposition dependent on the abuse that were being perpetrated?

    If some kid were throwing rocks at a low flying eagle at high speed but still high enough that the threat of a lucky throw bringing it down were very small, what would your opposition to that be? I think most would oppose what those kids are doing by telling them to, "knock it off."

    Now, what if you came across the same kids torturing a puppy they had caught and were about to throw kerosene on it and light it? I think you would rev up your opposition to meet the threat, wouldn`t you? I myself in that situation would shoulder my way through the kids and pick up the dog, even if that mean a little physical elbow here or there as I pushed them aside.

    That is what I mean. Opposition slides on a scale.

    However, "cruelty" is defined differently depending on who you talk to.
    Exactly. People have to decide for themselves which definition they are going to accept or allign themselves with. Hopefully it will be based on empathy as to what they would not like have done to them if they were in an exploitable situation. That is why the battle lines are drawn between the ARists and the Animal Exploiters.

    Some in the AR movement call pet ownership cruelty. I personally don't see it that way. Pet ownership holds no economic benefit.
    It does for unscrupulous breeders and pet shops.

    What lengths would the ADL, ALF, and the like go to for simple pets?.
    They would surely liberate a back yard dog if it were showing signs of neglect or abuse. They have gone after breeders that supply to labs.

    For normal situations involving pets, I am not aware of actions by the ADL or ALF that targeted pet owners. In fact, when the ALF liberates animals such as dogs or cats or rabbits from labs, they have already arranged a network of guardians for the animals so they can live out the rest of their life in peace. Most ARists use the term of ownership as guardians to those who are caring for animals rather than pet owners.

    The ADL or the ALF would rather use their recourses of time more carefully directed at industry rather than individuals who are the guardians of animals in a responsible manner.

  7. #107
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Yes but your philosophy on farming is that it is wrong to keep an animal for its benefets and its wrong for farmers to keep animals against their will.
    Surely then you also believe that keeping pets, even in a responsable mannor, is wrong? Or do you not believe that the lady who keeps the slave for emotional comfort is actually keeping a slave? You cant have it both ways.
    Also i would be interested to hear your veiws on fish farming, since surely going by your belief that farming is unesarsary and slavery towards animals, that fish farming is wrong?

    If we stopped all farming tomorrow, there'd be no meat, so what would all the pet dogs and cats do? Or would you rather that millions of animals be euthanised?

  8. #108
    Hachiro
    Guest


    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    Our intelligence allows us to be at the top. However, we have the choice now to choose our dietary practices and live long lives without causing pain, suffering or exploitation to other animals.
    We should treat animals with the equal consideration of interests. Just as I would not want someone to put a catheter in me, keep me confined, milk my organs for bile, I, too should reciprocate that by not forcing another being to undergo that which I would not want to be forced to undergo.
    It is about respecting the interests of animals which do not want to have their autonomy violated. We have the ability to extend that respect, therefore we should choose the choice that does not deliberately target and cause harm to another being for our enjoyment, pleasure, greed, or convenience.
    Just because we can do it does not mean we should. Might does not make right. If that were a working philosophy to embrace, then more intelligent or stronger people should be able to weild their recourses to enslave those who do not come up to their level. I reject the underlying philosophy that that would be built on. That is the philosophy for which many of the horrible things that are perpetuated upon animals. I do not accept "might makes right." "Might" merely makes things possible to do.
    Thank you for your honest reply, I'm sorry but on this topic I will have to say that I can not see things from your point of view.

    I can not see human beings being put on the same level as animals. Yes they probably feel pain and suffering but I care more about the pain and suffering that humans cause on each other and not what we do to animals.

    Animals are a food source, not only for human's but other animals as well. From your point of view how can you "justify" animals killing each other for nourishment.

    We human's, out side of Hannibal the Cannibal....(sorry that was in poor taste) do not eat our own.

  9. #109
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Hachiro
    Thank you for your honest reply, I'm sorry but on this topic I will have to say that I can not see things from your point of view.
    Your welcome, and I don`t mind you cannot see things from my point of view at this particular moment in time. You know, I never always had this point of view either. It evolved in me. Now, I am not saying it will in you, but who knows the future? Our lives take turns sometimes that many of us would never have thought possible. All I would ask is that when you hear arguments either for or against Animal Rights you just listen. If you are not swayed you are not swayed. The only thing lost is some time in hearing the points of each argument. Fair enough?

    I can not see human beings being put on the same level as animals. Yes they probably feel pain and suffering but I care more about the pain and suffering that humans cause on each other and not what we do to animals.
    A lot of people feel like you do. In fact, probably the majority do. That is one of the obstacles in the way of strengthening the movement. However, it is growing. Albeit, too slowly for us in The Movement.

    It does not require that you put animals on the 'same' level as humans in order to take into their consideration of interests to not have pain and violation of autonomy directed at them. If I had to run into a burning building to rescue my wife and our dog and they were both on the sofa overcome with smoke inhalation and I could only carry one to safety, I woudl definitely choose my wife. So, you see -- just by granting consideration of interests to animals in that you don`t cause them pain, does not mean they are put on the same level the sense of totality.

    Animals are a food source, not only for human's but other animals as well. From your point of view how can you "justify" animals killing each other for nourishment.
    We human's, out side of Hannibal the Cannibal....(sorry that was in poor taste) do not eat our own.
    Animals are captives of their instincts and passions. We are not. Humans have the ability to ponder on things, to empathise, and to choose something other than that which would give us immediate gratification.

    As for eating our "own," that is because law and morals forbid it. But, in places where civil law of the modern world do not exist, there have been traditions of eating other humans.

  10. #110
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    So how do you feel about my questions :) ?

  11. #111
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    MeAndroo: Well, a major sticking point had been the treatment of stray dogs. Oddly enough, now ex-GM Stuckey had been reducing the number of dogs euthanized in Los Angeles over the past few years, from 39,000 in 01-02 to 25,000 in 04-05. Yet the Animal Defense League didn't think that was the kind of progress they wanted, and they successfully forced Villaraigosa to remove Stuckey. The ADL proclaims a desire for a no-kill policy immediately, but speaking practically, where are 25,000 dogs going to go? I also find the difference in stances troubling to the cause, since even PETA euthanizes animals.
    Ok, that sounds familiar. Thanks for reminding me. I think I had read reasons why they weren`t satisfied with him eventhough like you said he had been reducing the numbers, but I would have to review that if I were going to support their reasons for wanting him removed. But, if you ask me from what you provided me with, just the fact that he was reducing those PTSed, to me, is a great thing and something that he should be lauded for.

    You brought up where so many surplus dogs would go and the fact that even PETA acknowledges the need to euthanize and in fact do euthanize (however the case you referenced in the link has quotes and info from a group whose aim is to battle the influence of PETA), and I will be the first to say as a PETA member and supporter that the issue of euthanizing, even within and amongst PETA members, is a very controversial issue.

    Many people don`t know it, but PETA is not just an AR group. They are also AW and that part of them sees euthanasia as a kind release to animals that are abandoned and which most likely have little chance of finding a new home. To me, I wish that were not the case. That issue is complex within PETA and there have been mistakes in it which have been admitted to by PETA.

  12. #112
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    So how do you feel about my questions strongvoicesforward :) ?

  13. #113
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Ghandi and MLK championed peaceful resistance. That, while one tactic, cannot be blindly followed when the urgency of the situation is demanding immediate relief from tyranny and killing. Direct Action has always been employed by those fighting for civil justice, advancement of rights, or in the effort to throw off the yolk of oppression.

    Slaves did rebel against slaveowners. Abolitionists did aid in the relieving of epropertyf from the eproperty owner.f Revolutionaries did destroy property by dumping it into harbors. Partisens did attack villagers who were sympathisers in Europe who supported the Nazis in their tyrannical march of murder and victory across lands and nations. Infrastructure was targeted.

    Those who inflict damage upon those visiting tyranny and killing upon animals are merely taking a page out of history`s playbook that has taught the world that Direct Action does get results. It is not the only answer to the problems of animal exploitation, but it does exist as one of the prongs in a multi-pronged attack upon the exploiters and the status quo that keeps it in place.

    One of Italy`s biggest Mink Farms closed after a large financial loss which saw about 18,000 mink liberated in Oct 2003. Only 4,000 mink could be recovered and 40 years of selective breeding data was destroyed. Breeding Data over decades long are cherished by breeders for those are the tools that allow breeders to keep their line of mink fur at top quality. That data comes after painstakingly recording which line matched with which line without imbreeding in order to create high quality. Losing that is like starting at year one to create new breed lines. The Gherardi Mink Farm of Ferrara disappears with its data -- no more a place of Profit God off the backs and blood of animals.

  14. #114
    It's Clipper Time! Achievements:
    1 year registered
    MeAndroo's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-07-04
    Age
    37
    Posts
    116


    Ethnic group
    Chinese/Japanese American
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    You brought up where so many surplus dogs would go and the fact that even PETA acknowledges the need to euthanize and in fact do euthanize (however the case you referenced in the link has quotes and info from a group whose aim is to battle the influence of PETA), and I will be the first to say as a PETA member and supporter that the issue of euthanizing, even within and amongst PETA members, is a very controversial issue.
    Well, the link was just a link to an Associated Press article. It happened to be on a page of an org with a no-kill policy. I just found it interesting that a group as prominent as PETA, with so much name recognition, a relative juggernaut even, would have to resort to euthanizing animals when groups like Animal Adoption and Rescue Foundation is able to euthanize none of their animals. It just seemed like PETA would have an easier time finding homes.
    For normal situations involving pets, I am not aware of actions by the ADL or ALF that targeted pet owners. In fact, when the ALF liberates animals such as dogs or cats or rabbits from labs, they have already arranged a network of guardians for the animals so they can live out the rest of their life in peace. Most ARists use the term of ownership as guardians to those who are caring for animals rather than pet owners.
    I mentioned the ADL and ALF as examples of AR groups, not as specific examples. This quesion originated from Ingrid Newkirk's quote "Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation." That quote seemed pretty all-encompassing to me, and I can't really imagine it being taken out of context.
    (a.) I am not sure I agree with you on that, MeAndroo. Sure, it is easy to violence always condemned by someone, but there is a lot of violence that is never condemned by governments even when they themselves perpetrated it. In fact they justify it and hold it up as good because they feel it was justified.
    For example: I never recall the U.S. government ever condemning the violent acts of our forefathers who destroyed the cargo of British tea moored in harbor. They felt right and compelled to inflict economic damage upon the British government (which technically was their government also) and compannies and transports that profitted from the tea.
    Apparently I misunderstood what you said originally. If you meant the government had to condemn their own actions, I can't think of the last time that's EVER happened. Certainly the Boston Tea Party is a popular example, but I don't recall them playing psychological games with the tea company employees, which is a common tactic of many AR groups. My main "beef," so to speak, is how ARists may target lower employees and people not necessarilly affiliated with the industries.
    Like this
    And here
    They sometimes target people who work within a department, despite having no real connection to what they oppose (in the 2nd link they target a Volunteer Coordinator).
    Go Trojans

  15. #115
    Spammer Achievements:
    1 year registered

    Join Date
    12-02-06
    Posts
    12


    Country: United States



    Heart

    animals' angels bless you for all your work

    please vote for the seals of Canada in this poll
    http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread...hreadid=159243

    animal rights links
    http://www.network54.com/forum/460325

  16. #116
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by jp22
    animals' angels bless you for all your work
    please vote for the seals of Canada in this poll
    http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread...hreadid=159243
    animal rights links
    http://www.network54.com/forum/460325
    What about the cases in MeAndroo's links? You cannot exactly call that good work..?
    ps: As far as i know, you aern't allowed to advertise other forums here without permission.

  17. #117
    Hachiro
    Guest


    The only thing lost is some time in hearing the points of each argument. Fair enough?
    Just to let you know I don't consider it lost time, I must say you have conviction in your beliefs and I respect you for that.

  18. #118
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by MeAndroo
    Well, the link was just a link to an Associated Press article. It happened to be on a page of an org with a no-kill policy. I just found it interesting that a group as prominent as PETA, with so much name recognition, a relative juggernaut even, would have to resort to euthanizing animals when groups like Animal Adoption and Rescue Foundation is able to euthanize none of their animals. It just seemed like PETA would have an easier time finding homes.
    I understand what you mean, and I as a PETA member and strong supporter, would wish they would change their stance on euthinasia. However, I have always been aware that PETA is both an AR and AW org and that is why it has grown so large. It seeks to accomadate both groups (and sometimes because PETA puts themselves in the middle, the lose AR support and AW support).

    Howeve, in recent years PETA has been getting away from euthinasia in some respects by investing money in a high tech mobile snip and tie neutering/spaying clinic unit that goes into neighborhoods and fixes animals for virtually nothing right there on the spot. PETA has admitted to some failures in their euthinasia programs and are trying to address those issues. They are not perfect and like any org I would never hold them to the standard of perfection. Mistakes are made.

    But, Peta is not a shelter. When Peta has euthinized animals, it has usually been because they were called in by shelters who were just overwhelmed. In fact sometimes even sherrifs have called PETA to come in and euthinize because PETA does so with drugs that put the animal down peacefully. Often people are distressed by some methods of euthinasia that are being used, such as crude gas chambers or bullets to the head and just want a more peaceful end for the animals. When they request PETA`s help on that issue PETA does so at their expense.

    Keep in mind, too: The orgs you listed above seem to be shelters or a network of shelters, PETA is not a shelter and to compare them isn`t really fare unless you want PETA to change its mission statement from mainly fighting for AR and AW to sheltering. The two are different. Likewise, those two orgs probably do not spend the bulk of their recources fighting for AR and AW. Both kinds of orgs have their place in the world of Animal Activism but it is not right to expect all orgs dealing with animals to be all things to everybody.

    Something else to consider, most shelters that do not euthinize are often full to capacity and cannot and do not take in animals when they are full. And what happens to a cat or dog when an owner doesn`t want it anymore but then learns a no-kill shelter won`t take it because they are full? Either two things happen:

    1. The animal is brought to a pound where they will be in many cases gassed.

    2. The animal is dumped in the street and can cause car accidents, spread desiease, come down with rabies, attack children or adults, and add to the stray population by breeding and increasing the risks of all above.

    Now, what do you think would happen if PETA tried to funnel all the animals that are dumped at them to these shelters? They would be told, no thanks. We can`t take them in. Sure, PETA could rewrite their whole mission statement and start using all their funds to create shelters (and it would bloom to such large amounts of animals that it would take all their funds and still not be enough), but then that would mean ceasing all their other efforts at bettering the lives of animals through their other campaigns,
    and if PETA became just another shelter, they would lose many of the AR and AW members who are looking for changes in policy -- not just creating another "no kill shelter."

    Peta is doing on a national level of trying to influence government and corporate policy that it could not do if it were focusing on shelter management. Their membership would shrink as well as thier maximum potential to make changes not at the point of cleaning up the mess of animals having already been produced, but at the point prior to creating the animals that make them targets of abuse. The latter is the longterm solution to the problems. The former is the bandaid reaction to the problems.

    But, I will not go to great lengths to defend PETA on this issue. Just I wanted to merely state the basics of the case of euthinasia with PETA. As a PETA member I fall on the side of AR.

  19. #119
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by MeAndroo
    I mentioned the ADL and ALF as examples of AR groups, not as specific examples. This quesion originated from Ingrid Newkirk's quote "Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation." That quote seemed pretty all-encompassing to me, and I can't really imagine it being taken out of context.
    MeAndroo, do you have the paragraph it was taken from or the paragraph that it is in and the two that sandwich it?

    I will give one example that could justify that statement.

    First, look at the word combination -- "human manipulation."

    The creating of dog breeds are definitely manipulated by humans. Pit bulls are often bred by dispicable people who want stronger and stronger dogs with stronger and stronger locking jogs so that they can win dog fights they have every intention of breeding their dogs for. They may experiment with mixing them with Rotweilers etc... to get that perfect fighting dog. I find that a dismal situation.

    Does that one example in and of itself make it "absolutely" dismal? Well, nothing on a social level is absolute in this world, and we can all be a little prone to hyperbol when we are championing our views. For the most part, if someone were to sit down with her and ask her to explain exactly (maybe she did in the context it was taken from) what she meant by that statement, it would take some of the hyperbol off of it. However, breeding in may respects is dysmal and the process of obtaining an animal that can suffer is more laxed than getting a car. If a Rotweiler or Pit bull, or any dog for that matter can cause injury to another human, as well as a car injuring someone, why should the former be so unregulated as to not require breeders and owners to go to training and get lecenses while the latter does? That IS rather dismal and anyone who ever has or has had a child mauled by a dog would wish harsh regs would be in place for being granted permission to have pets.

    Now, I doubt she was condemning "guardianship" of animals by people who open up their homes to animals from shelters or picking up a stray to provide it a home for until it passed from this world. Surely, her statements could have been qualified better and I would bet she has already explained that statement somewhere if in fact it were not qualified in that text it was taken from.

  20. #120
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by MeAndroo
    Apparently I misunderstood what you said originally. If you meant the government had to condemn their own actions, I can't think of the last time that's EVER happened.
    lol. I`m sure there are probably a few examples of admissions of wrong behaviour, but for the most part, I think you and I agree on this point.

    Certainly the Boston Tea Party is a popular example, but I don't recall them playing psychological games with the tea company employees, which is a common tactic of many AR groups.
    Prior to the outbreak of formal hostilities between the colonists and Great Britain, colonists did intimidate the families of governors and military persons. Furthermore, many loyalists were also intimidated by those agitating for independence. The Sons of Liberty were not a boy scout group like many people believe. Governments and their Generals in the field have often known the value of getting a loved one in custody in order to use them as bait to coax their target to turn themselves in. It is an old tactic and if I recall, I had read a biography on MLK in which his taped affairs by the FBI were hinted at to him that that knowledge would deeply hurt his wife if it were made known to her.

    Sadly, dirty tricks of intimidation have proven through history to affect some action or cause a siege mentality to set in on the target. A siege mentality wears the opponent down over time and causes them to not be able to focus on their work and that inner voice does talk to them and asks them if it is worth it all? -- and many capitulate to that voice. If it had not been proven successful, it would not have lasted so long as a strategy.

    Does that mean the "ends justifies the mean"? Idealistically, we all hate to think that it is so and most say they reject it. But, if you look at history that is what is often employed. "The ends does not justify the means" has become a trite phrase that governments and orgs have not always adopted as a moral principal to conduct themselves by. Did the end of WW2 justify the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki even when that meant the deaths of hundreds of thousands of non-combatants of women and children just to save a million combatant soldiers? To the U.S. admin at that time it sure did.

  21. #121
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Is it just me or i being entirely ignored here ?! What a shame, i thought you were interested in my opinions at the start of this debate SVF. Shame that you choose not to talk to me anymore, heh, cant please everyone can i ? Be careful MeAndroo, if you question his beliefs/opinions too much he might just ignore you entirely too .

  22. #122
    It's Clipper Time! Achievements:
    1 year registered
    MeAndroo's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-07-04
    Age
    37
    Posts
    116


    Ethnic group
    Chinese/Japanese American
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    Keep in mind, too: The orgs you listed above seem to be shelters or a network of shelters, PETA is not a shelter and to compare them isn`t really fare unless you want PETA to change its mission statement from mainly fighting for AR and AW to sheltering. The two are different. Likewise, those two orgs probably do not spend the bulk of their recources fighting for AR and AW. Both kinds of orgs have their place in the world of Animal Activism but it is not right to expect all orgs dealing with animals to be all things to everybody.
    I understand PETA can't do everything, but the reason I put them in such a difficult spot is because like it or not, they are the face of the animal rights/welfare movement. An organization of that size and with that kind of name recognition should seemingly be able to find shelters/homes for a great majority of these animals. If they want to push an agenda that's all or nothing, they have to behave in a way that's all or nothing. Otherwise they compromise their integrity.

    The article I referenced doesn't have them gassing tens of thousands of pets, but they euthanized a large majority of them: 1300 out of 2000. Another site I found (here) accuses PETA of killing 80% of all animals it officially takes in. (This site was found by chasing a link from this site. There's an estimated 6 to 8 million dogs and cats made stray each year. PETA takes in 2640 animals in 2004 and kills 2274 of them. It seems to me that they're already being choosy. Is PETA just the officially accepted euthanizer amongst the AR/AW movement? Or am I missing something here...

    Certainly PETA isn't the end-all be-all of animal rights, but I just think if their leaders are going to make such bold of the general public, they should hold themselves to the same standards.

  23. #123
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by MeAndroo
    I understand PETA can't do everything, but the reason I put them in such a difficult spot is because like it or not, they are the face of the animal rights/welfare movement. An organization of that size and with that kind of name recognition should seemingly be able to find shelters/homes for a great majority of these animals. If they want to push an agenda that's all or nothing, they have to behave in a way that's all or nothing. Otherwise they compromise their integrity.
    I think that comment underlined (which I did) is very inciteful and an honest one -- and to tell you the truth, I would like to see PETA either abandon euthinasia or taking in strays or responding to the shelter problems in total rather than risk the contradiction of one of their tenets.

    But, "all or nothing" is extreme and very few orgs can or proclaim to be so ideological pure that contradictions don`t arise. Again, I can`t hold them to perfection because I hold no one else to perfection. Even Peta knows society will never be perfect about not consuming beef or that the slaughter business will completely ever go out of business -- therefore they also hope and fight for better slaughtering methods.

    I don`t think they compromise their integrity because their euthinasia is not done in secret. They are open about that so if people want to support them or not, they can see their policy on it and make a decision based on what they openly say. If they were purely AR and euthinized, then there would be an integrity problem -- along if they didn`t admit to it. But, they are open about the kind of org they are and their practices.

    But personally, I wish they wouldn`t euthinize but the U.S. does a lot of things I also wish they wouldn`t do, but that doesn`t make me abandon them. It would call for America doing something egregiously wrong for me to do so. Likewise, Peta would have to egregiously do something counter to their stated goals and practices of AR and AW for me to abandon them. Everything they have done in euthinasia is stated by them and the majority of AW orgs do acknowledge euthinasia as practical. But again -- it is one thing I don`t like. I will bet however, that PETA in the years to come will move away from it.

    Should their size affect what they do, like you hinted at? Possibly. They do seem to have the recourses to branch out. Who knows? Could be that a stronger network of placement for animals could come about as new people come into the leadership positions of PETA. They are a dynamic group and I am sure that shifts of powers with opinions on policy will occur.

    The article I referenced doesn't have them gassing tens of thousands of pets, but they euthanized a large majority of them: 1300 out of 2000. Another site I found (here) accuses PETA of killing 80% of all animals it officially takes in. (This site was found by chasing a link from this site. There's an estimated 6 to 8 million dogs and cats made stray each year. PETA takes in 2640 animals in 2004 and kills 2274 of them. It seems to me that they're already being choosy.
    Well one thing is for certain, I am getting behind on catching up to your links you are providing. I still have two previous ones I haven`t addressed from a previous post of yours. I will try. If you don`t mind, try to afford me a little time before you bury with some more(smile).

    Is PETA just the officially accepted euthanizer amongst the AR/AW movement? Or am I missing something here...
    From anyone else I may have taken that as an insult, but you and I have been having a good conversation on the poinst so actually... I even laughed with that phrase of words. First time I have heard it. At least I will be prepared if I hear it again.

    You sure aren`t missing wit, and I appreciate wit when it comes in a good conversation.

    But, "no," Peta is not the "official euthanizer" in the AR movement. They couldn`t do it in the AR department because the AR side of their org is against violation of autonomy. In the AW department however, the charge is fair. However, I am sure pounds in counties and cities across the U.S. euthanize more animals than PETA does.

    Certainly PETA isn't the end-all be-all of animal rights, but I just think if their leaders are going to make such bold [demands] of the general public, they should hold themselves to the same standards.
    Fair enough. I agree because as you know, I have already told you I wish they would distance themselves from euthinasia. I think they will. I think they are.

    However, I can`t and I won`t, and the large number of supporters of PETA and the new ones joining every year accept the realism that PETA is confronting the stray problem with. I do though wish, that my idealism on hoping to find all strays and abandoned animals could be realized or that PETA could do much more than they have on this issue. I think they will eventually. It just takes time. I think everyone knows that PETA has to choose its fights carefully with its recourses and they have opted to focus more on industry abuse rather than the problems that stem from individual pet ownership.

    I know it looks like PETA is flushed with money -- but compared to the corporations they take on as rivals, PETA`s annual intake of funds would not even compare to KFC, and they are fighting more than just KFC. They have to play their chess game with their recourses as to how the insiders who move their pieces see fit. AS you know, in chess some pieces are sacrificed in the short run for the long term victory. I know it sounds cold but all generals in their own wars will tell you the same. PETA knows they are fighting a war and to be idealistic would invite defeat.

  24. #124
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Hachiro
    Just to let you know I don't consider it lost time, I must say you have conviction in your beliefs and I respect you for that.
    Hi Hachiro,

    Thanks for replying and I am glad that you don`t consider it a waste of time. Also, thanks for acknowledging my convictions. That was kind of you to do so in a positive light.

    By the way, since your reply was rather short, I am wondering if I didn`t do a good job in addressing your original comments. If so, sorry about that and feel free to point it out to me and I will try to do so better. Sometimes I miss things as I get behind in replying to other posts.

    Looking forward to your continued participation in the discussion.

  25. #125
    It's Clipper Time! Achievements:
    1 year registered
    MeAndroo's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-07-04
    Age
    37
    Posts
    116


    Ethnic group
    Chinese/Japanese American
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    But, "all or nothing" is extreme and very few orgs can or proclaim to be so ideological pure that contradictions don`t arise. Again, I can`t hold them to perfection because I hold no one else to perfection. Even Peta knows society will never be perfect about not consuming beef or that the slaughter business will completely ever go out of business -- therefore they also hope and fight for better slaughtering methods.
    That's true, and is one of the reasons I get so frustrated by other AR/AW organizations. PETA straddles the line between ideological and pragmatic better than some of their more extreme brethren, but it still seems wrong to me as an idealist.

    From anyone else I may have taken that as an insult, but you and I have been having a good conversation on the poinst so actually... I even laughed with that phrase of words. First time I have heard it. At least I will be prepared if I hear it again.
    It certainly wasn't intended to offend, but the picture those figures painted was rather striking.

    I guess what it boils down to, regardless of whether I agree with their politics or not, is that it's tough for me to watch groups like PETA claim a moral high ground and engage in the very act they condemn so publicly. I really tend not to differentiate between the politics of groups within the AR/AW movement so much as I differentiate between their tactics. I'm curious to know how many people in PETA are affiliated with more extreme groups like the ALF, ELF and ADL. I can't help but wonder if, as you say, these groups exist to draw out the spectrum of politics and make groups like PETA appear reasonable, as a communist would to a simple liberal, and if there's people involved with both simultaneously.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Animal Rights
    By Tsuyoiko in forum Nature & Environment
    Replies: 138
    Last Post: 20-10-13, 22:41
  2. Animal testing, your feelings?
    By Tokis-Phoenix in forum Nature & Environment
    Replies: 155
    Last Post: 20-06-06, 07:03
  3. Animal speech
    By RockLee in forum Nature & Environment
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 22-05-06, 09:06
  4. status, drug treatment and fighting obesity
    By den4 in forum World News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 15-06-04, 20:03

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •