The big problem with the notion of animal rights is that defending them necessarily involves harming people. For exmaple, it’s one thing to think that fox hunting is distasteful and to try to convince others of this through reasoned argument; it’s quite another to pass laws preventing it. Passing a law involves using force against those who disobey it. To use force against people to protect animals is to reduce human life to the value of animal life, which is absurd.
That animal rights activists often lose all perspective and begin to see the lives of animals more worthy of protection than the lives of humans is well known. Examples abound of acts of terrorism against institutions performing medical experiments on animals. That the knowledge gained from animal experiments might save human lives does not seem important to people who engage in such activities. It is as if they start to believe their own rhetoric that killing an animal is murder, and come to equate the killing of a person as no worse than eating a steak.
Over at the Daily Ablution, Scott Burgess comments on a story about a PETA flyer entitled Your Mommy Kills Animals (available as a PDF). This flyer is to be distributed to children whose parents are seen wearing fur. Apparently PETA cares more about fluffy bunnies than it does children, because it sees nothing wrong in telling them that their parents are evil. It has been known for a long time that PETA hates people. In a conference in 2001 their vegetarian campaign coordinator said:
I think it would be a great thing if, you know, all of these fast-food outlets and these slaughterhouses and these laboratories and the banks that fund them, exploded tomorrow. I think it’s perfectly appropriate (applause) and I think it’s perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through the windows and, you know, everything else along the line. Alleluia to the people who are willing to do it.
I don’t have a moral problem with eating steaks or saving dying children with animal researched medicine because animals don’t have rights. They are a natural resource, just like trees and coal. Humans have used animals to survive for as long as they have existed, just like animals use each other to survive, often by cruelly eating each other.
This is not to say that animals should be made to suffer unnecessarily. I probably wouldn’t particularly enjoy going fox hunting if it involved excessive suffering by the fox (which is debateable), but there is no way I would ever support a law against it. This is because I think people are more important than animals, and deserve to be allowed to go about their business as they see fit as long as they do not harm other people or their property.
PETA Pirouette
Well, a week late, but here it is – the PETA round-up that can be known only as the PETA Pirouette. At this time, I’d like to thank PETA for the fodder. Colorado Conservative notes that PETA has a beef with beef.com, er, or had. The man we know as Trey…
I totally agree with the fact that animal rights activists are too extreme. There are alternates to animal rights such as animal welfare that is concerned with the well being of animals but at the same time supports human / animal relationships such as companion animals and market livestock. Animal rights is a political movement that is trying to destroy all human / animal interaction including activities such as fishing, having a pet, or riding a horse.
Program on the emergence of civilization.
“14 species of large animals capable of domesitcation in the history of mankind.
None from the sub-Saharan African continent.
13 from Europe, Asia and northern Africa.”
Favor.
And disfavor.
They point out Africans’ attempts to domesticate the elephant and zebra, the latter being an animal they illustrate that had utmost importance for it’s applicability in transformation from a hunting/gathering to agrarian-based civilization.
The roots of racism are not of this earth.
Austrailia, aboriginals:::No domesticable animals.
The North American continent had none. Now 99% of that population is gone.
Organizational Heirarchy
Heirarchical order, from top to bottom:
1. MUCK – perhaps have experienced multiple universal contractions (have seen multiple big bangs), creator of the artificial intelligence humans ignorantly refer to as “god”
2. Perhaps some mid-level alien management –
3. Mafia (evil) aliens – runs day-to-day operations here and perhaps elsewhere (“On planets where they approved evil.”)
Then we come to terrestrial management:
4. Chinese/egyptians – this may be separated into the eastern and western worlds
5. Romans – they answer to the egyptians
6. Mafia – the real-world interface that constantly turns over generationally so as to reinforce the widely-held notion of mortality
7. Jews, corporation, women, politician – Evidence exisits to suggest mafia management over all these groups.
Survival of the favored.
Movies foreshadowing catastrophy
1986 James Bond View to a Kill – 1989 San Fransisco Loma Prieta earthquake.
Journal: 10 composition books + 39 megs of text files
Wow Rob.. It’s true – You really do suck.
there are so many things wrong with your blog that i dont even know where to begin. first off i agree with you- PETA are extremists. however when you compare them to the millions around the world who arent even considered extremists, such as yourself and who believe that animals are mere commodities who are to be used in whatever way we see fit, whether it be with factory farms, animal experimentation, puppy farms- the list goes on, then i think that PETA is more than outweighed. when you see as many things as PETA does (just go on the website for 10 minutes if you think you can handle it) then it is VERY easy to lose faith in humanity.
PS often when animal rights groups talk about experimentation they dont mean just medical research but cosmetic testing also. of course though, animals deserve to be subjected to the torturous lives that we put them through because human ‘needs’far outweigh that of an animal- because humans really NEED shiny hair or longer looking lashes…
Anonymous, I’m not sure what point you’re making in the first part of your post. If it’s simply, “animals suffer a lot” then I’m sure you’re right. I did say that I don’t think animals should be made to suffer unnecessarily.
As for the second part about cosmetics: let the market decide. If people decide that they don’t like the idea of animal testing then cosmetics companies have a commercial incentive to reduce animal testing. No laws are necessary, and no terrorising of researchers is either.
Your blog is intelligently written and well articulated, however I’m not sure why you would have used fox hunting as your primary example. I agree PETA has a dangerous agenda, putting animals on a level with or higher than people. I do however think that animals do have some rights, though admittedly, not legally. I don’t agree with the use of animals solely for our entertainment (ie.circuses). I also don’t think that animals need to suffer in scientific testing if there is another, better alternative. I’m not a vegan or vegetarian. I think we are above animals and God made it that way. I do, however, have some problems with the meat industry, and would love to see more humane treatment of said animals, but don’t think there will be any laws passed anytime soon on that front. I would not oppose laws that would make the lives of the animals we use better and happier while they are here.
Just one other question. Are you saying that passing laws to protect animals would, in some way, harm humans? There are cruelty laws for pets and the owners of pets are bound by these laws. Do you feel it is wrong to punish someone who is guilty gross neglect or other harm to their pet?
Sorry….It’s me again. I wrote the last two comments on your blog and would love to hear what you think. Just wanted to add a name and realized that I neglected to do so.
Hallie: to answer your question, I don’t agree with *laws* to protect animals. The point about the law is that it is enforced with violence against people (otherwise people would just ignore the law). I don’t agree with using violence against people to protect animals.
*However*, I agree that cruelty to animals is wrong. The solution is a social one: simply stigmatise people who are cruel to animals. Protest about them. Embarass them. Boycott cruel meat producers. Change people’s opinions.
Just don’t co-opt the violence of the government to your cause.
While we may use animals for our purposes – like cultivation for food – we should attempt to make their remaining days as pleasant as possible. As animals feel pleasure and pain, we should not deliberately set out to inflict harm. In that sense one can distinguish a positive act (such as sexual abuse) from an omission (such as neglecting to provide adequate housing space).
Ultimately however, the democratic process only guarantees the process, and not the content. If we were to start from scratch and examine existing protections afforded to animals, and then decide some were beyond a bare minimum standard, I doubt animal activists would permit their removal. The tendency would be to add increasing protections to the point where the burden would become unjustifiable. So in a practical sense translating strong moral convictions to legislation is not always feasible.