> > > <snip> > > > > The thing about the meat industry is that a lot the cruel practices are > > identified, > > > > and can be and are being changed. If people make noise about them, then the > > industry > > > > will be motivated to make these changes. No doubt there are also ways to influence > > the > > > > amount of animal suffering in agriculture. Can they design
affordable mice-proof
> > bins? > > > > Can tilling be made more humane? Can they kill insects and wild oats without > > poisoning > > > > all the birds? Economics.
> > > The AR side has made these points repeatedly.
> > [..]
> > I wouldn't go out and replace commercial meat with a commercial
vegetable in my diet
> > simply in an attempt to reduce suffering of animals, there is
> > that it would have this effect. That doesn't mean it wouldn't, just that it might not. > > One ought to rely on more solid evidence to base life-altering decisions.
> The issue of reducing suffering is > secondary for me, so the nit-picking > argument about how much suffering is > created by alternate forms of food > production is not the deciding factor. > I certainly agree that when practices > that _increase_ suffering can be > easily identified -- as many in > the meat industry can be -- it becomes > a good and important goal to reduce or > eliminate them, as much as possible. > But I am vegan
Your choice - just do not keep trying to intimidate others into following your unhealthy lifestyle(when followed religiously or by the book ) by promoting criminal acts against other Humans.
> because > I believe raising > and slaughtering animals for food violates > those animals' inherent rights.
Explain - What "inherent" rights have animals got.
If there was such a thing as universal "rights"(or duties) animals would respect them. As it is animals don't respect "rights" cannot understand them and so haven't got any.
I believe "Rights" generally are a type of contract/understanding between at least two parties concerning common resources/behavior
For the human concept of rights to work there has to be a degree of reciprocation(give & take). Non-human animals just do not have the capacity for this.
> Even if > veggie production created more absolute suffering, > I could not, ethically, replace veggies with > non-human animal meat, any more than I could > replace veggies with flesh of slaughtered humans.
> "Adam Knisely" <a...@cmptr.com> wrote in message > news:qT7a6.37494$OD6.3263672@news1.telusplanet.net... > > > > > > > I just didn't think of it. Anyway, it seems silly now. If you have > > > > rats in > > > > > > the grain > > > > > > > you get rid of them the best you can, you don't count them.
> > > > > > Why? Their lives aren't important enough to count?
> > > > > What does counting them accomplish?
> > > > Nevermind.
> > > People shouldn't worry about mice. Let them worry about us.
> > So it's only cows and pigs and chickens that you care about? A mouse isn't > > good enough for you?
> Pigs and cows are domesticated animals that we create, breed and raise, giving them a > life as David says, in exchange for the use of their hides. We give them life. They > give us their lives, and our lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract, which I > believe includes treating them with respect. The only contract I have with mice is you > get out of my grain and I won't kill you. Isn't that the way YOU look at mice? Maybe > we're not so different after all.
Although we know there's no literal "contract", I do like your way of stating the fact that both humans and animals benefit from the animals' domestication.
> > > <snip> > > > > The thing about the meat industry is that a lot the cruel practices are > > identified, > > > > and can be and are being changed. If people make noise about them, then the > > industry > > > > will be motivated to make these changes. No doubt there are also ways to influence > > the > > > > amount of animal suffering in agriculture. Can they design
affordable mice-proof
> > bins? > > > > Can tilling be made more humane? Can they kill insects and wild oats without > > poisoning > > > > all the birds? Economics.
> > > The AR side has made these points repeatedly.
> > [..]
> > I wouldn't go out and replace commercial meat with a commercial
vegetable in my diet
> > simply in an attempt to reduce suffering of animals, there is
> > that it would have this effect. That doesn't mean it wouldn't, just that it might not. > > One ought to rely on more solid evidence to base life-altering decisions.
> The issue of reducing suffering is > secondary for me, so the nit-picking > argument about how much suffering is > created by alternate forms of food > production is not the deciding factor. > I certainly agree that when practices > that _increase_ suffering can be > easily identified -- as many in > the meat industry can be -- it becomes > a good and important goal to reduce or > eliminate them, as much as possible. > But I am vegan because I believe raising > and slaughtering animals for food violates > those animals' inherent rights. Even if > veggie production created more absolute suffering, > I could not, ethically, replace veggies with > non-human animal meat, any more than I could > replace veggies with flesh of slaughtered humans.
> Rat
If I understand you, then, it doesn't particularly bother you that billions of nonfood animals are killed in the process of raising vegetables/grains, but it does bother you that other animals (hogs, cattle, poultry, etc.) are raised and killed specifically for food?
I would assume, then, that it isn't the killing of animals that bothers you at all, but the fact that with food animals, *humans* are doing the raising and are the ones benefiting from it.
Is this is indeed your opinion (as it seems to be), it's little wonder that ARA's are often accused of having an "anti-human" attitude. Your argument certainly sounds that way to me.
> > > > <snip> > > > > > The thing about the meat industry is that a lot the cruel practices are > > > identified, > > > > > and can be and are being changed. If people make noise about them, then the > > > industry > > > > > will be motivated to make these changes. No doubt there are also ways to > influence > > > the > > > > > amount of animal suffering in agriculture. Can they design affordable > mice-proof > > > bins? > > > > > Can tilling be made more humane? Can they kill insects and wild oats without > > > poisoning > > > > > all the birds? Economics.
> > > > The AR side has made these points repeatedly.
> > > [..]
> > > I wouldn't go out and replace commercial meat with a commercial vegetable in my > diet > > > simply in an attempt to reduce suffering of animals, there is insufficient > evidence > > > that it would have this effect. That doesn't mean it wouldn't, just that it might > not. > > > One ought to rely on more solid evidence to base life-altering decisions.
> > The issue of reducing suffering is > > secondary for me, so the nit-picking > > argument about how much suffering is > > created by alternate forms of food > > production is not the deciding factor. > > I certainly agree that when practices > > that _increase_ suffering can be > > easily identified -- as many in > > the meat industry can be -- it becomes > > a good and important goal to reduce or > > eliminate them, as much as possible. > > But I am vegan because I believe raising > > and slaughtering animals for food violates > > those animals' inherent rights.
> Does this inherent right of the animal also exist between it and
other animals, or is
> a special right that only comes into effect in relation to humans? If the latter, you > might consider the possibility that the right is granted by you.
Excellent point Dutch.
In fact all rights
> are granted, there are no "inherent rights".
Sorry, I disagree, if it has to be granted it is a privelege not a right. Someone telling you that you can do something before you are allowed to do it violates the very concept of a "right". In the U.S., the concept of natural rights, as defined by John Locke, formed the basis for our Declaration of Independence and it's recognition of "inalienable rights", as well as the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. Rights are not granted, you have them by virtue of being human. Kevin
> Even if > > veggie production created more absolute suffering, > > I could not, ethically, replace veggies with > > non-human animal meat, any more than I could > > replace veggies with flesh of slaughtered humans.
> > > > > <snip> > > > > > > The thing about the meat industry is that a lot the cruel > practices are > > > > identified, > > > > > > and can be and are being changed. If people make noise about > them, then the > > > > industry > > > > > > will be motivated to make these changes. No doubt there are > also ways to > > influence > > > > the > > > > > > amount of animal suffering in agriculture. Can they design > affordable > > mice-proof > > > > bins? > > > > > > Can tilling be made more humane? Can they kill insects and > wild oats without > > > > poisoning > > > > > > all the birds? Economics.
> > > > > The AR side has made these points repeatedly.
> > > > [..]
> > > > I wouldn't go out and replace commercial meat with a commercial > vegetable in my > > diet > > > > simply in an attempt to reduce suffering of animals, there is > insufficient > > evidence > > > > that it would have this effect. That doesn't mean it wouldn't, > just that it might > > not. > > > > One ought to rely on more solid evidence to base life-altering > decisions.
> > > The issue of reducing suffering is > > > secondary for me, so the nit-picking > > > argument about how much suffering is > > > created by alternate forms of food > > > production is not the deciding factor. > > > I certainly agree that when practices > > > that _increase_ suffering can be > > > easily identified -- as many in > > > the meat industry can be -- it becomes > > > a good and important goal to reduce or > > > eliminate them, as much as possible. > > > But I am vegan because I believe raising > > > and slaughtering animals for food violates > > > those animals' inherent rights.
> > Does this inherent right of the animal also exist between it and > other animals, or is > > a special right that only comes into effect in relation to humans? If > the latter, you > > might consider the possibility that the right is granted by you.
> Excellent point Dutch.
> In fact all rights > > are granted, there are no "inherent rights".
> Sorry, I disagree, if it has to be granted it is a privelege not a > right. Someone telling you that you can do something before you are > allowed to do it violates the very concept of a "right". In the U.S., > the concept of natural rights, as defined by John Locke, formed the > basis for our Declaration of Independence and it's recognition > of "inalienable rights", as well as the Bill of Rights in our > Constitution. Rights are not granted, you have them by virtue of being > human.
"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness --"
"endowed by their Creator" is window dressing. Rights are granted by the government of a country to it's citizens. These rights are revokable under various circumstances at the whim of said government. They also depend on the total cooperation of the surrounding population. Any person is free to transgress these rights at any time. Are these people punished by God? Rights do not exist, period, except as implied by current laws and customs.
> > Pigs and cows are domesticated animals that we create, breed and raise, > giving them a > > life as David says, in exchange for the use of their hides. We give them > life. They > > give us their lives, and our lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial > contract, which I > > believe includes treating them with respect. The only contract I have with > mice is you > > get out of my grain and I won't kill you. Isn't that the way YOU look at > mice? Maybe > > we're not so different after all.
> Although we know there's no literal "contract", I do like your way of > stating the fact that both humans and animals benefit from the animals' > domestication.
Thanks. I am beginning to find myself quoting David.. who'da thunk???
> > The issue of reducing suffering is > > secondary for me, so the nit-picking > > argument about how much suffering is > > created by alternate forms of food > > production is not the deciding factor. > > I certainly agree that when practices > > that _increase_ suffering can be > > easily identified -- as many in > > the meat industry can be -- it becomes > > a good and important goal to reduce or > > eliminate them, as much as possible. > > But I am vegan because I believe raising > > and slaughtering animals for food violates > > those animals' inherent rights. Even if > > veggie production created more absolute suffering, > > I could not, ethically, replace veggies with > > non-human animal meat, any more than I could > > replace veggies with flesh of slaughtered humans. > If I understand you, then, it doesn't particularly bother you that billions > of nonfood animals are killed in the process of raising vegetables/grains,
It certainly "bothers" me -- just as much as the humans killed in in the process bothers me. But I can see no practical or ethical reason why replacing veggies with meat will create the sort of change which will encourage farmers to kill fewer of them.
> but it does bother you that other animals (hogs, cattle, poultry, etc.) are > raised and killed specifically for food?
Yes.
> I would assume, then, that it isn't the killing of animals that bothers you > at all, but the fact that with food animals, *humans* are doing the raising > and are the ones benefiting from it.
It is the intentional raising and killing of animals by humans.
> Is this is indeed your opinion (as it seems to be), it's little wonder that > ARA's are often accused of having an "anti-human" attitude. Your argument > certainly sounds that way to me.
It's not. If I were really anti-human I would suggest raising humans on hydroponically-produced veggie diets and slaughtering _them_ for food. I don't.
> > The issue of reducing suffering is > > secondary for me, so the nit-picking > > argument about how much suffering is > > created by alternate forms of food > > production is not the deciding factor. > > I certainly agree that when practices > > that _increase_ suffering can be > > easily identified -- as many in > > the meat industry can be -- it becomes > > a good and important goal to reduce or > > eliminate them, as much as possible. > > But I am vegan because I believe raising > > and slaughtering animals for food violates > > those animals' inherent rights. > Does this inherent right of the animal also exist between it and other animals, or is > a special right that only comes into effect in relation to humans? If
In relation to humans, because only humans are moral agents (as far as we know; some animals may be moral agents, but we don't, I think, know which, if any, are at this point.)
>the latter, you > might consider the possibility that the right is granted by you. In fact all rights > are granted, there are no "inherent rights".
Ipse dixit. That is your opinion, no more.
> Even if > > veggie production created more absolute suffering, > > I could not, ethically, replace veggies with > > non-human animal meat, any more than I could > > replace veggies with flesh of slaughtered humans. > It's a basically selfish ethic then. So's mine.
I wouldn't say it is selfish. I would say it is an ethical view which creates a moral obligation for me.
> > In article <t6id3asr7jo...@news.supernews.com>, > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote: > > > "Rat & Swan" <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote in message > > news:3A692CDF.2AB1@pacbell.net... > > > > Dutch wrote:
> > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > The thing about the meat industry is that a lot the cruel > > practices are > > > > > identified, > > > > > > > and can be and are being changed. If people make noise about > > them, then the > > > > > industry > > > > > > > will be motivated to make these changes. No doubt there are > > also ways to > > > influence > > > > > the > > > > > > > amount of animal suffering in agriculture. Can they design > > affordable > > > mice-proof > > > > > bins? > > > > > > > Can tilling be made more humane? Can they kill insects and > > wild oats without > > > > > poisoning > > > > > > > all the birds? Economics.
> > > > > > The AR side has made these points repeatedly.
> > > > > [..]
> > > > > I wouldn't go out and replace commercial meat with a commercial > > vegetable in my > > > diet > > > > > simply in an attempt to reduce suffering of animals, there is > > insufficient > > > evidence > > > > > that it would have this effect. That doesn't mean it wouldn't, > > just that it might > > > not. > > > > > One ought to rely on more solid evidence to base life-altering > > decisions.
> > > > The issue of reducing suffering is > > > > secondary for me, so the nit-picking > > > > argument about how much suffering is > > > > created by alternate forms of food > > > > production is not the deciding factor. > > > > I certainly agree that when practices > > > > that _increase_ suffering can be > > > > easily identified -- as many in > > > > the meat industry can be -- it becomes > > > > a good and important goal to reduce or > > > > eliminate them, as much as possible. > > > > But I am vegan because I believe raising > > > > and slaughtering animals for food violates > > > > those animals' inherent rights.
> > > Does this inherent right of the animal also exist between it and > > other animals, or is > > > a special right that only comes into effect in relation to humans? If > > the latter, you > > > might consider the possibility that the right is granted by you.
> > Excellent point Dutch.
> > In fact all rights > > > are granted, there are no "inherent rights".
> > Sorry, I disagree, if it has to be granted it is a privelege not a > > right. Someone telling you that you can do something before you are > > allowed to do it violates the very concept of a "right". In the U.S., > > the concept of natural rights, as defined by John Locke, formed the > > basis for our Declaration of Independence and it's recognition > > of "inalienable rights", as well as the Bill of Rights in our > > Constitution. Rights are not granted, you have them by virtue of being > > human.
> "WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they > are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are > Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness --"
> "endowed by their Creator" is window dressing. Rights are granted by the government of > a country to it's citizens. These rights are revokable under various circumstances at > the whim of said government. They also depend on the total cooperation of the > surrounding population. Any person is free to transgress these rights at any time. Are > these people punished by God? Rights do not exist, period, except as implied by > current laws and customs.
God is not a part of the equation. "Endowed by their creator" was a reference by Jefferson to whoever or whatever an individual believed was responsible for their existence. It was not a Christian reference since Jefferson was not a Christian and neither were the majority of his contemporaries. Governments cannot take away a person's rights. The government may become tyrannical and refuse to recognize those rights, but that in no way implies that the rights do not exist. A person may violate another person's rights, but the government is expected, due to the existence of the individual right that was violated, to set just punishment for such violations. Governments do not have laws against murder because murdering someone is harmful to the government, they have laws against murder because murder is a violation of another person's individual and inalienable right to life. The same holds true for all rights, all of which are derived from one or more of the three inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property. Kevin
> In article <t6k8sc58dj8...@news.supernews.com>, > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote: > > <brandon1...@my-deja.com> wrote in message > news:94d61h$9vj$1@nnrp1.deja.com... > > > In article <t6id3asr7jo...@news.supernews.com>, > > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote: > > > > "Rat & Swan" <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote in message > > > news:3A692CDF.2AB1@pacbell.net... > > > > > Dutch wrote:
> > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > The thing about the meat industry is that a lot the cruel > > > practices are > > > > > > identified, > > > > > > > > and can be and are being changed. If people make noise > about > > > them, then the > > > > > > industry > > > > > > > > will be motivated to make these changes. No doubt there > are > > > also ways to > > > > influence > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > amount of animal suffering in agriculture. Can they design > > > affordable > > > > mice-proof > > > > > > bins? > > > > > > > > Can tilling be made more humane? Can they kill insects and > > > wild oats without > > > > > > poisoning > > > > > > > > all the birds? Economics.
> > > > > > > The AR side has made these points repeatedly.
> > > > > > [..]
> > > > > > I wouldn't go out and replace commercial meat with a > commercial > > > vegetable in my > > > > diet > > > > > > simply in an attempt to reduce suffering of animals, there is > > > insufficient > > > > evidence > > > > > > that it would have this effect. That doesn't mean it wouldn't, > > > just that it might > > > > not. > > > > > > One ought to rely on more solid evidence to base life-altering > > > decisions.
> > > > > The issue of reducing suffering is > > > > > secondary for me, so the nit-picking > > > > > argument about how much suffering is > > > > > created by alternate forms of food > > > > > production is not the deciding factor. > > > > > I certainly agree that when practices > > > > > that _increase_ suffering can be > > > > > easily identified -- as many in > > > > > the meat industry can be -- it becomes > > > > > a good and important goal to reduce or > > > > > eliminate them, as much as possible. > > > > > But I am vegan because I believe raising > > > > > and slaughtering animals for food violates > > > > > those animals' inherent rights.
> > > > Does this inherent right of the animal also exist between it and > > > other animals, or is > > > > a special right that only comes into effect in relation to > humans? If > > > the latter, you > > > > might consider the possibility that the right is granted by you.
> > > Excellent point Dutch.
> > > In fact all rights > > > > are granted, there are no "inherent rights".
> > > Sorry, I disagree, if it has to be granted it is a privelege not a > > > right. Someone telling you that you can do something before you are > > > allowed to do it violates the very concept of a "right". In the > U.S., > > > the concept of natural rights, as defined by John Locke, formed the > > > basis for our Declaration of Independence and it's recognition > > > of "inalienable rights", as well as the Bill of Rights in our > > > Constitution. Rights are not granted, you have them by virtue of > being > > > human.
> > "WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created > equal, that they > > are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that > among these are > > Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness --"
> > "endowed by their Creator" is window dressing. Rights are granted by > the government of > > a country to it's citizens. These rights are revokable under various > circumstances at > > the whim of said government. They also depend on the total > cooperation of the > > surrounding population. Any person is free to transgress these rights > at any time. Are > > these people punished by God? Rights do not exist, period, except as > implied by > > current laws and customs.
> God is not a part of the equation. "Endowed by their creator" was a > reference by Jefferson to whoever or whatever an individual believed > was responsible for their existence. It was not a Christian reference > since Jefferson was not a Christian and neither were the majority of > his contemporaries.
What majority, and if not Christian, what were they?
> Governments cannot take away a person's rights. The > government may become tyrannical and refuse to recognize those rights, > but that in no way implies that the rights do not exist. > A person may > violate another person's rights, but the government is expected, due to > the existence of the individual right that was violated, to set just > punishment for such violations. Governments do not have laws against > murder because murdering someone is harmful to the government, they > have laws against murder because murder is a violation of another > person's individual and inalienable right to life. The same holds true > for all rights, all of which are derived from one or more of the three > inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property.
> > "Rat & Swan" <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> <snip> > > > But I am vegan
> > Your choice - just do not keep trying to intimidate others into following > > your unhealthy lifestyle(when followed religiously or by the book )
> It's not any more inherently unhealthy > than any other lifestyle. And I doubt > that anyone could show I have ever > "tried to intimidate" anyone.
> > by promoting criminal acts against other Humans.
> Sometimes unjust laws must be broken to > save lives and rescue victims of immoral > behavior.
"Saving" the life of or "rescuing" one or a few research animals does not justify destroying years of research that may save the lives of many people and many animals in the future.
> > Rat & Swan <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> <snip> > > > The issue of reducing suffering is > > > secondary for me, so the nit-picking > > > argument about how much suffering is > > > created by alternate forms of food > > > production is not the deciding factor. > > > I certainly agree that when practices > > > that _increase_ suffering can be > > > easily identified -- as many in > > > the meat industry can be -- it becomes > > > a good and important goal to reduce or > > > eliminate them, as much as possible. > > > But I am vegan because I believe raising > > > and slaughtering animals for food violates > > > those animals' inherent rights. Even if > > > veggie production created more absolute suffering, > > > I could not, ethically, replace veggies with > > > non-human animal meat, any more than I could > > > replace veggies with flesh of slaughtered humans.
> > If I understand you, then, it doesn't particularly bother you that billions > > of nonfood animals are killed in the process of raising vegetables/grains,
> It certainly "bothers" me -- just as much > as the humans killed in in the process > bothers me. But I can see no practical or > ethical reason why replacing veggies with > meat will create the sort of change which > will encourage farmers to kill fewer of > them.
> > > *Even if > > > veggie production created more absolute suffering,* > > > I could not, ethically, replace veggies with > > > non-human animal meat, any more than I could > > > replace veggies with flesh of slaughtered humans.
> > but it does bother you that other animals (hogs, cattle, poultry, etc.) are > > raised and killed specifically for food?
> Yes.
> > I would assume, then, that it isn't the killing of animals that bothers you > > at all, but the fact that with food animals, *humans* are doing the raising > > and are the ones benefiting from it.
> It is the intentional raising and killing > of animals by humans.
I believe that's pretty much what I said. Humans are doing the raising and the killing, therefore it bothers you. If it were animals killing other animals, it would be no big deal. It's when humans enter the equation that it begins to bother you.
> > Is this is indeed your opinion (as it seems to be), it's little wonder that > > ARA's are often accused of having an "anti-human" attitude. Your argument > > certainly sounds that way to me.
> It's not. If I were really anti-human > I would suggest raising humans on > hydroponically-produced veggie diets and > slaughtering _them_ for food. I don't.
Being anti-human isn't limited to supporting the slaughter of humans. It simply means you're against things that benefit humans. At least, that's my take on it.
> Dutch wrote: <snip> > > > But I am vegan because I believe raising > > > and slaughtering animals for food violates > > > those animals' inherent rights.
> > Does this inherent right of the animal also exist between it and other animals, or is > > a special right that only comes into effect in relation to humans? > In relation to humans, because only humans > are moral agents (as far as we know; some > animals may be moral agents, but we don't, > I think, know which, if any, are at this > point.)
Following that reasoning, the inherent right does not exist for that animal, except in the specific case of it's interaction with the moral agent. Doesn't that suggest to you that it's the moral agent that carries this imperative, since it only exists when he is present?
> >the latter, you > > might consider the possibility that the right is granted by you. In fact all rights > > are granted, there are no "inherent rights".
> Ipse dixit. That is your opinion, > no more.
Logic supports it. Throughout history human societies have existed, and very few have recognized these so-called "inherent rights". Nothing about these rights suggests they are anything more than agreeable to the social and constitiutional environment. Certainly in recent history, before blacks or women were recognized as "equal", inherent rights did not apply to them.
> > Even if > > > veggie production created more absolute suffering, > > > I could not, ethically, replace veggies with > > > non-human animal meat, any more than I could > > > replace veggies with flesh of slaughtered humans.
> > It's a basically selfish ethic then. So's mine.
> I wouldn't say it is selfish. I would say > it is an ethical view which creates a moral > obligation for me.
Why isn't it selfish to choose a preferred diet over one that you admit causes less suffering?
> > > In fact all rights > > > > are granted, there are no "inherent rights".
> > > Sorry, I disagree, if it has to be granted it is a privelege not a > > > right. Someone telling you that you can do something before you are > > > allowed to do it violates the very concept of a "right". In the > U.S., > > > the concept of natural rights, as defined by John Locke, formed the > > > basis for our Declaration of Independence and it's recognition > > > of "inalienable rights", as well as the Bill of Rights in our > > > Constitution. Rights are not granted, you have them by virtue of > being > > > human.
> > "WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created > equal, that they > > are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that > among these are > > Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness --"
> > "endowed by their Creator" is window dressing. Rights are granted by > the government of > > a country to it's citizens. These rights are revokable under various > circumstances at > > the whim of said government. They also depend on the total > cooperation of the > > surrounding population. Any person is free to transgress these rights > at any time. Are > > these people punished by God? Rights do not exist, period, except as > implied by > > current laws and customs.
> God is not a part of the equation.
It doesn't matter, but if it's not god who endows rights, then how did we get them? Do you claim that they were just sitting there (self-evident), and the founding fathers of America finally noticed them? How do you explain that they forgot to include blacks and women? How is it that these inherent rights are not recognized everywhere?
>. Governments cannot take away a person's rights.
Ever hear of conscription? Ever hear of internment camps?
> The > government may become tyrannical and refuse to recognize those rights, > but that in no way implies that the rights do not exist.
What evidence can you produce that they exist?
A person may
> violate another person's rights, but the government is expected, due to > the existence of the individual right that was violated, to set just > punishment for such violations.
But this shows that at best that these rights only imply behavior. If they were real, no-one could violate them.
> Governments do not have laws against > murder because murdering someone is harmful to the government, they > have laws against murder because murder is a violation of another > person's individual and inalienable right to life. The same holds true > for all rights, all of which are derived from one or more of the three > inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property.
Spoken like a true patriot Brandon, but the argument doesn't hold up. "inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property" are basic principles of a modern democratic society, and desirable to be sure, but there is no reason to believe that they are inherent (coded into dna or whatever) in any way. Many societies have flourished over the millenia without them.
> > Governments cannot take away a person's rights. The > > government may become tyrannical and refuse to recognize those rights, > > but that in no way implies that the rights do not exist. > > A person may > > violate another person's rights, but the government is expected, due to > > the existence of the individual right that was violated, to set just > > punishment for such violations. Governments do not have laws against > > murder because murdering someone is harmful to the government, they > > have laws against murder because murder is a violation of another > > person's individual and inalienable right to life. The same holds true > > for all rights, all of which are derived from one or more of the three > > inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property.
> I agree.
I agree that democratic rights are beneficial, but that begs the original question. Are they "inherent" or granted and enforced by governments? When there are changes, such as in the womens' sufferage movement, did we just wake up and recognize a right that was inherent all along or did we simply add a new one? Is there a difference?
> <snip> > > > The issue of reducing suffering is > > > secondary for me, so the nit-picking > > > argument about how much suffering is > > > created by alternate forms of food > > > production is not the deciding factor. > > > I certainly agree that when practices > > > that _increase_ suffering can be > > > easily identified -- as many in > > > the meat industry can be -- it becomes > > > a good and important goal to reduce or > > > eliminate them, as much as possible. > > > But I am vegan because I believe raising > > > and slaughtering animals for food violates > > > those animals' inherent rights.
The whole idea of inherent rights collapses under any scrutiny. Also nothing inherent in nature as I view it objectively suggests anything like the inherent right not to be killed for food, quite the reverse, it is one's role and obligation to be, except for the top animal in each food chain. Certainly there exists no inherent right to not be kept in a barn and fed. What I believe is that we have the absolute right as free moral agents to do whatever we want with animals. This is only limited by prevailing AW laws. This is not a corrupt model, it needs refining, yes. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Animals raised as food animals get a lot of good treatment, some bad. Take that bad away, and... problem gone.
> I agree that democratic rights are beneficial, but that begs the original question. > Are they "inherent" or granted and enforced by governments? When there are changes, > such as in the womens' sufferage movement, did we just wake up and recognize a right > that was inherent all along or did we simply add a new one? Is there a difference?
Virtually every movement to expand protection and participation in the social group has been based on the belief that the excluded group HAD/ HAS a right, which should be recognized by society and by law (in legally-based societies). No one that I know of has ever led a protest movement with the slogan" "Let's create a right to (do X)...or for (group X)." It is always assumed that the right already exists, is inherent, and recognition of it is being unfairly denied by the power structure. Otherwise, there would be no sense of legitimacy to the movement.
In every case I know of, those who were trying to expand the recognition of the existing right(s) argued that all those whose right(s)were already recognized and acknowledged had those rights on the basis of certain significant shared characteristics. Those who argued against the expanded definition of the class of those holding the right(s) argued that the significant shared characteristics must include ones which excluded the protesting (or protested-for) group. Those arguing for the excluded group argued that the excluding characteristics were not significant (were not necessary) for recognition in the class of those holding the inherent, already-existing, right. The AR movement is continuing in this tradition, and the anti-AR movement is continuing in the tradition which denied rights to women, blacks, the poor, the non-noble, and gay people. That is why the comparison with the liberation movements for those groups is frequently cited by ARAs.
What people in both camps sometimes forget is that the contemporary opponents of expanding the class of rights-holders to include such groups believed quite genuinely that the excluded group really didn't have the shared characteristics necessary to be included. Their arguments sound both ridiculous and horribly bigoted today, but they were held in good faith at the time. I have faith that some day in the future, the arguments against recognizing the rights of some non-human animals will be seen in the same light as the arguments against recognizing the full rights of women, blacks, gays, non-property- holders, Catholics, Jews, and so on.
> <brandon1...@my-deja.com> wrote in message > news:94e6q3$2nt$1@nnrp1.deja.com... > > In article <t6k8sc58dj8...@news.supernews.com>, > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote: > > > <brandon1...@my-deja.com> wrote in message > > news:94d61h$9vj$1@nnrp1.deja.com... > > > > In article <t6id3asr7jo...@news.supernews.com>, > > > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote: > > > > > "Rat & Swan" <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote in message > > > > news:3A692CDF.2AB1@pacbell.net... > > > > > > Dutch wrote:
> > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > The thing about the meat industry is that a lot the cruel > > > > practices are > > > > > > > identified, > > > > > > > > > and can be and are being changed. If people make noise > > about > > > > them, then the > > > > > > > industry > > > > > > > > > will be motivated to make these changes. No doubt there > > are > > > > also ways to > > > > > influence > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > amount of animal suffering in agriculture. Can they design > > > > affordable > > > > > mice-proof > > > > > > > bins? > > > > > > > > > Can tilling be made more humane? Can they kill insects and > > > > wild oats without > > > > > > > poisoning > > > > > > > > > all the birds? Economics.
> > > > > > > > The AR side has made these points repeatedly.
> > > > > > > [..]
> > > > > > > I wouldn't go out and replace commercial meat with a > > commercial > > > > vegetable in my > > > > > diet > > > > > > > simply in an attempt to reduce suffering of animals, there is > > > > insufficient > > > > > evidence > > > > > > > that it would have this effect. That doesn't mean it wouldn't, > > > > just that it might > > > > > not. > > > > > > > One ought to rely on more solid evidence to base life- altering > > > > decisions.
> > > > > > The issue of reducing suffering is > > > > > > secondary for me, so the nit-picking > > > > > > argument about how much suffering is > > > > > > created by alternate forms of food > > > > > > production is not the deciding factor. > > > > > > I certainly agree that when practices > > > > > > that _increase_ suffering can be > > > > > > easily identified -- as many in > > > > > > the meat industry can be -- it becomes > > > > > > a good and important goal to reduce or > > > > > > eliminate them, as much as possible. > > > > > > But I am vegan because I believe raising > > > > > > and slaughtering animals for food violates > > > > > > those animals' inherent rights.
> > > > > Does this inherent right of the animal also exist between it and > > > > other animals, or is > > > > > a special right that only comes into effect in relation to > > humans? If > > > > the latter, you > > > > > might consider the possibility that the right is granted by you.
> > > > Excellent point Dutch.
> > > > In fact all rights > > > > > are granted, there are no "inherent rights".
> > > > Sorry, I disagree, if it has to be granted it is a privelege not a > > > > right. Someone telling you that you can do something before you are > > > > allowed to do it violates the very concept of a "right". In the > > U.S., > > > > the concept of natural rights, as defined by John Locke, formed the > > > > basis for our Declaration of Independence and it's recognition > > > > of "inalienable rights", as well as the Bill of Rights in our > > > > Constitution. Rights are not granted, you have them by virtue of > > being > > > > human.
> > > "WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created > > equal, that they > > > are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that > > among these are > > > Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness --"
> > > "endowed by their Creator" is window dressing. Rights are granted by > > the government of > > > a country to it's citizens. These rights are revokable under various > > circumstances at > > > the whim of said government. They also depend on the total > > cooperation of the > > > surrounding population. Any person is free to transgress these rights > > at any time. Are > > > these people punished by God? Rights do not exist, period, except as > > implied by > > > current laws and customs.
> > God is not a part of the equation. "Endowed by their creator" was a > > reference by Jefferson to whoever or whatever an individual believed > > was responsible for their existence. It was not a Christian reference > > since Jefferson was not a Christian and neither were the majority of > > his contemporaries.
> What majority, and if not Christian, what were they?
They were Deists Polly. You didn't think I just made up my own religion, did you? <g>
"The government of the United States is in no way founded upon Christianity." George Washington
"Jesus Christ is a great role model for children. I have not been a child for several decades." Thomas Jefferson
James Madison, James Monroe, Richard Henry Lee, Harry Lee, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, and Patrick Henry were also Deists. Many of the lesser known Founding Fathers also believed in Deism. Oh, there were two prominent men among our Founding Fathers who were Christians: John Adams and Samuel Adams, our first famous brewers. Kevin
> > Governments cannot take away a person's rights. The > > government may become tyrannical and refuse to recognize those rights, > > but that in no way implies that the rights do not exist. > > A person may > > violate another person's rights, but the government is expected, due to > > the existence of the individual right that was violated, to set just > > punishment for such violations. Governments do not have laws against > > murder because murdering someone is harmful to the government, they > > have laws against murder because murder is a violation of another > > person's individual and inalienable right to life. The same holds true > > for all rights, all of which are derived from one or more of the three > > inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property.
> "Saving" the life of or "rescuing" one or a few research animals does not > justify destroying years of research that may save the lives of many people > and many animals in the future.
There are several falacies here. First, rescuing the animal will not destroy any existing research; it will only prevent future use of that animal. Second, this sees the animal only as a means, of value only for his/her use to humans. That is a view I reject. Third, the suffering and injustice to the animal exists now. The obligation to end that suffering and injustice exists now. Any future benefit is as nebulous and morally meaningless as the "experience of life" of David's future generations of doomed cows and pigs.
> <snip> > > "Saving" the life of or "rescuing" one or a few research animals does not > > justify destroying years of research that may save the lives of many people > > and many animals in the future.
> There are several falacies here. First, > rescuing the animal will not destroy any > existing research; it will only prevent > future use of that animal.
Agreed, this is a fallacy.
Second, this sees
> the animal only as a means, of value only > for his/her use to humans. That is a view I > reject.
Then this is not a fallacy, it is a serious difference in opinion, and is one of the fundamental differences between AR supporters and opponents.
Third, the suffering and injustice
> to the animal exists now. The obligation to > end that suffering and injustice exists now.
Arguing from the standpoint of AR, in which the existence of said injustice is established, I agree this would be a fallacy. Also, if the experiments could be conducted in a more humane way, I would also agree that there is an obligation to do so.
> Any future benefit is as nebulous and > morally meaningless as the "experience of > life" of David's future generations of doomed > cows and pigs.
Correct, just don't get caught up discussing David's beliefs with Polly. Kevin
> There are several falacies here. First, > rescuing the animal will not destroy any > existing research; it will only prevent > future use of that animal.
To the degree that the existing research depends upon the animals "rescued", the existing research will most certainly be destroyed.
ALF "rescuers" have yet to demonstrate any ability to be selective in their vandalism. They wantonly destroy and damage labs without care.
> Second, this sees > the animal only as a means, of value only > for his/her use to humans. That is a view I > reject. Third, the suffering and injustice > to the animal exists now. The obligation to > end that suffering and injustice exists now.
The "obligation" exists only in the minds of self-selected fascists intent on forcing their beliefs onto the rest of society.
ALF members are nothing but a bunch of chicken-shit cowards.
> In every case I know of, those who were trying to > expand the recognition of the existing right(s) > argued that all those whose right(s)were already > recognized and acknowledged had those rights on > the basis of certain significant shared characteristics.
And non-human animals do not share the most significant characteristic necessary for rights - the ability to reciprocate.
If animals have "inherent" rights, they have those rights regardless of the transgressor. The rabbit would have just as much a claim against a fox as it does a human. Since it does not, your "theory" collapses into the incoherent briar patch from which it came.
Pointing to other historically aggrieved minorities only weakens your argument - if you were correct, you wouldn't have to continually whine "It's the same thing as..."
|
