Originally posted by bbarr[b[Just because the concept of 'rights' is a human concept, it doesn't follow that rights are human projections. The concept 'chair' is a human concept as well, and that surely doesn't entail that chairs are human projections, after all, you can't sit in a projection.[/b]
I did not say rights are human projections. the idea that animals can have rights is an human projection.
The same is true for your example wit the chair, .A chair is a reality, not a projection. This statement is true as long as we keep it within the human domain. Actually it is only true for these human beings who recognize the chair as a chair. In the same way as we say that a picture can be a reproduction of a person. This is true for people who can perceive the depth in a picture. Little children, aboriginals and animals who are not aquatinted with this technique of looking at pictures will not see that person. For them it is not more than a flat piece of paper with some different shades of grey..
So the chair is only a chair if someone recognizes it as a chair. The thought, that animals recognize a chair as an object to sit on is false and arises from a projection how we as human beings look at a chair. In a circus we can see how animal trainers play with this illusion. Bears, lions and elephants sit in chairs and on benches. The animal trainers play with the suggestion that these animals know what the chair is meant for. For them it as its best an attempt to satisfy the trainer so they get their rewards. They wouldn't discriminate between a chair as in a coffin. The chair is only chosen to reach the maximum illusion that animals are like human beings.
If you think that rights are just fictional entities like unicorns, then it follows that you don't have any rights either. This may be an extreme view, but at least it would be consistent.
No, that is not my view. Unicorns are fictional for most human beings. For animals they do not exist at all, not in reality nor in fiction.
If, however, you think that you actually have rights, then there must be some criterion you satisfy in virtue of which you qualify as a rights-holder. You've claimed before that the properties of being a reasoning, self-aware creature are sufficient to qualify a creature as a rights-holder (remember the alien example above),
That is right
yet you would refuse to recognize the animals who also satisfy these criteria (like gorillas and chimps, for instance) and yet recognize as rights-holders those who fail to satisfy these criteria (like human infants and the severely retarded). Please address these glaring inconsistencies in your view.
I agree with you that animals like gorilla's and chimps are on the brink of self-awareness. The problem I have with you approach is that you cannot tell clearly where you have to draw the line and that everubody may draw that line differently. Maybe we also can say dolphins and some other non-human beings on our earth have self-awareness. As I said before some people claim that trees have some kind of consciousness.
Human babies have not yet developed their self-awareness. They are on their way to that state of mind; so they should be treated as people with self-awareness. For people who lose their self-awareness through illness or old age we should apply the same rules.
To find the right criteria it can help to realize why we work with the concepts of rights and obligations. I think the main reason is that we try to make our life as safe as possible and try to escape from the many dangers that we became aware of and that we enlarged to some extent by developing our self-awareness.
So we make rules and laws that give us the maximum space to feel at ease. Part of the fear we try to overcome is what will happen when disaster strikes us through sickness, old age etc. We realize that we all have more than a chance that we become sick, grow old and can become retarded or get children that are disabled. So we make rules and laws about mutual rights and obligations that will safeguard us as much as possible.
With animals it is a different matter. Some people may feel the closeness we also feel for human beings, but others don't and see nature mainly as a handy tool or toy they can use or misuse. That is a reality we have to accept for the moment. It may change but it would be foolish to expect that this will happen soon. If someone equals a chicken to a burger there is little we can do about that. Actually I'm afraid that that way of thinking is still prevalent and maybe even still on the rise.
The key question is what can we do when we agree that at the same time there is an urgent need to protect nature.
We can try to give animals rights. But that is problematic to say the least. I still think it is philosophically impossible to defend such an approach. The only way out of that is to say that animals have self-awareness. But than you will get entangled with scaling problems. Who gets rights and who doesn't.
Another problem we have to face with animal rights is that it mayl lead to further polarization between people. This polarization, provoked from both sides may lead to opposite effects from what we want. The Dutch animal activist who murdered recently an influential politician who was against animal rights should serve as a warning to avoid to such an extreme polarization.
To me the best road we can approach is to show that we enrich our lives by communicating better with the non-human world and that we should that by national and international law. My feeling is that in this way we will gain much easier sympathy for a friendly world, for humans and animals alike.
So I still thinkanimal rights are the wrong tools for the right purpose. But if I ever have to vote for it, I will vote most probably for the wrong tool.
4 edits
Originally posted by fjordthis is a very strange leap of faith, bourne out neither by the facts nor by the logic. your implication is that this AR activist murdered this anti-AR politician because of an AR issue on which they were polarized and therefore we should avoid polarizations between factions so as to prevent such an occurence from happening again.
Another problem we have to face with animal rights is that it mayl lead to further polarization between people. This polarization, provoked from both sides may lead to opposite effects from what we want. The Dutch animal activist who murdered ...[text shortened]... s a warning to avoid to such an extreme polarization.
[/b]
A. was this an AR issue?
well let's first look at the 'available facts' since you attempt to make the connection that the point of dispute was a matter of animal rights without providing any evidence at all. if we scan the internet for information on this matter we find a story very different from the one you are attempting to paint.
(from Al-Ahram Weekly Online http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2002/586/in1.htm)
the murdered Dutch politician, Pim Fortuyn was a "far-right wing populist ... who had been expected to get around 15 percent of the vote at this week's Dutch parliamentary elections". His stand, "anti-immigration, anti-Muslim and tough-on-crime" and " had attracted many Dutch who feel unhappy about the immigration policies of the past two social-liberal" governments. Fortuyn "had been compared in the media to Nazi bigwigs like Himmler and the Italian Fascist leader Mussolini."
the killer is Volkert van der Graaf who "is an animal rights activist, opposed to factory farming -- although environmental issues were not high on Fortuyn's agenda". there is nothing here that suggests the killing had anything to do with animal rights. quite the contrary "Many people fear that Fortuyn's assassination has strengthened xenophobic feelings in the Netherlands and convinced politicians to adopt an even tougher stand on immigration."
(from Committee for a Workers International http://www.worldsocialist-cwi.org/index2.html?/eng/2002/05/07pim.html)
"Much is still unclear about the killing, especially about the motives of the killer. Was it a political motivated assault, or the lone work of a mentally unbalanced gunman?"
"Pim Fortuyn played on the issue of immigrants and crime, and talked about the "backward" culture of Islam, as a way to whip up anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant feelings."
"Socialists point out that even if a deranged individual killed Pim Fortuyn, this has to be seen in context of conditions created by capitalist society."
(from CBSNews.com http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/06/world/main508129.shtml)
"Meanwhile in Amsterdam, prosecutors indicated Fortuyn's suspected killer may have been plotting against three other members of his anti-immigration party.
Police have charged a 32-year-old Dutchman with the killing. Though his name has not been officially released, he has been identified by former colleagues as Volkert van der Graaf, an environmental and animal rights activist."
(from Time Europe http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901020520-237161,00.html)
"Fortuyn's meteoric rise in just nine months on an anti-immigration platform had dealt a telling blow to the pragmatic consensus seeking that has long defined Dutch politics."
"Fortuyn, 54, was a man for confrontation, not consensus. He wanted to re-establish Dutch border controls and let in refugees only from Britain, Denmark, France and Germany. He sought to dial back the generous disability scheme that supports the roughly 15% of Dutch workers who claim they can't work for medical reasons."
"Van der Graaf, who is expected to face a murder charge, has not cooperated with prosecutors, leaving his motive unclear. While farm policy was not a central issue for Fortuyn, he is reported to have once said he would lift a current ban on mink farming."
(from CNews http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Law/2003/03/27/52354-ap.html)
"Volkert van der Graaf, 33, confessed to shooting Fortuyn outside a radio station May 6, just nine days before elections in which Fortuyn was contending for prime minister, to prevent him from gaining power and carrying out his anti-immigration agenda."
"Fortuyn was a brash gay academic who defied stereotypes and drew strong criticism for calling Islam a "backward religion." He blamed rising crime on the Moroccan and Turkish minorities and demanded a moratorium on new immigration."
"At his trial, Van der Graaf said he wanted to prevent Fortuyn from hurting weak members of society, comparing his rise to that of Adolf Hitler."
and the only reference to AR right at the end of the article: the prosecutor "Plooy said Van der Graaf, an animal rights activist, killed Fortuyn because Fortuyn promised to lift a ban on breeding animals for fur if elected."
why you are attempting to suggest that Fortuyn's murder was for animal rights issues, i am not sure. while it is true that van der graaf was recognized as an AR activist, this certainly does not prove that the murder was motivated for AR as was indicated (but not established) by Plooy the prosecutor apparently towards the end of the trial. rather, it seems very plausible that the murder had very strong links with Fortuyn's political positions on immigration.
in fact, i think you have made a ficticious link between AR and the murder that even the media is not making. you and anyone else can read through the 5 webpages i have referenced and correct me if i am mistaken in this conclusion.
B. assume that the murder was purely AR motivated
let's say that you are correct in your insinuation. let us assume that Van der Graaf killed Fortuyn solely because he was worried about Fortuyn lifting the anti-fur farming ban. how does this justify your stand that we should oppose animal rights because of this action?
just because we assume someone has killed someone else over an AR issue, doesn't mean that everyone involved in AR is so polarized that they will go around killing everyone opposed to their view nor does it mean that AR is a violent movement.
every movement has its extremists and it is unfortunate when people jump to conclusions about the movement based on the actions of this particular segment when the vast majority of the movement condemns violence. if we think otherwise, it should be obvious that no one should belong to any movement of any sort (that has a 'divergence' of opinions within it) for fear of being guilty by association.
C. polarization
your statement about granting rights contributing to further polarization suggests that whenever rights are granted there will be polarization. while this may be true in many cases, it doesn't mean that people can't overcome their differences, nor does it mean that polarization is a bad thing.
history is filled with rights of all sorts being granted (after being fought for sometimes) and people being polarized afterwards. it is absurd to think we presently meld together like homogenized butter: there will always be polarization under the present circumstances because people do have a difference of opinion.
to associate polarization with violence (a fallacy in itself) and thereby try to prevent it negates any process of progression. to deny rights to any group on that basis is purely a self-serving rationale that maintains the status quo.
finally, you do not mention the possibility that by granting animal rights society might actually become depolarized and there would be fewer conflicts in this area. we have been depolarized from robbing and murdering each other (to some extent) not just because we fear the consequences, but because we believe that people have rights not to be so violated. The reality is that animals have been granted some rights because people agree that they should not be abused. as the realization grows, so will the extent of these rights. it is not the 'wrong' tool as you, yourself say you will vote in favor of - it is the right tool, which is no doubt one reason that they are called 'rights'. 🙂
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfI apologize for the terrible length of this post. Anyway you don't have to read it ðŸ˜
Originally posted by bigg
A Dutch Drama
this is a very strange leap of faith, bourne out neither by the facts nor by the logic. your implication is that this AR activist murdered this anti-AR politician because of an AR issue on which they were polarized and therefore we should avoid polarizations between factions so as to prevent such an occurence from happening again.
My warning of polarization is not born from my wish to prevent murder, although I think that would be a rather valid reason, but from the severe consequences this murder had on the attitude of the public opinion afterwards.
A. was this an AR issue?
well let's first look at the 'available facts' since you attempt to make the connection that the point of dispute was a matter of animal rights without providing any evidence at all. if we scan the internet for information on this matter we find a story very different from the one you are attempting to paint.
I'm not surprised neither impressed. You have to realize that the information was mainly in Dutch an that the information you get from the internet is third hand information. Most of the information came in the Dutch language. I wish you could, but I am afraid most of you cannot read that. Therefore I will comment the information Prad collected from Internet.
(from Al-Ahram Weekly Online http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2002/586/in1.htm)
the murdered Dutch politician, Pim Fortuyn was a "far-right wing populist ... who had been expected to get around 15 percent of the vote at this week's Dutch parliamentary elections"
Pim Fortuyn was not a far right-wing populist. That is how his political opponents liked to paint him. If he was he would not have assembled so easily so may followers. We have had several ultra-right wing politicians. The support for them was always random. He was an unorthodox scholar, who moved from left (Marxist) to the open. He was a flamboyant, charismatic, polarizing person who had as many friends as fiends. He was anti-bureaucratic and not dogmatic. His ideas were certainly not mine, but he brought them convincingly, full of spirit and wit. I admired him for his joie the vivre, while I rejected most of his ideas. It was a pleasure to fight him. He hated grey mice, the middle of the road politicians.
He started his political party only 3 months before the elections started and we never saw a person in such a short time get so much followers. The expectation at the moment of his death (2 weeks before the elections) was that he might get 20% to 25% of the votes. It meant that he might have become the largest party (we have 10 political parties). If his party would become the winner, he would be the first candidate to become the Prime Minister.
. His stand, "anti-immigration, anti-Muslim and tough-on-crime" and " had attracted many Dutch who feel unhappy about the immigration policies of the past two social-liberal" governments. Fortuyn "had been compared in the media to Nazi bigwigs like Himmler and the Italian Fascist leader Mussolini."
Indeed, the immigration issue was a very important issue. But he was certainly not the first who made a point of this. Several politicians from the whole political spectrum had been warning that we had a real problem. I did not like his ideas and yes they dangerously brought,, but he was not anti immigrants. Actually he had put several immigrants on high eligible places in his party for seats in the Dutch parliament
We did not have a social-liberal government at the time of the murder. We never had. It would have been great, but we never had enough support for that. The government was conservative-social-liberal. The middle-left socialists and the conservatives were the major parties, the liberals were the lackeys as they are now again in a conservative-christian-liberal government
The public was not tired of that government, although an economic recession doesn't make any government popular. But it is true that especially city people got tired of a government that ignored growing city problems. Personally I think that the decision of Wim Kok, the very popular prime minister (socialist) not to return in a new cabinet played a major role in the gigantic switch, even more because his socialist successor-in-spe didn't accelerate any heartbeat.
the killer is Volkert van der Graaf who "is an animal rights activist, opposed to factory farming -- although environmental issues were not high on Fortuyn's agenda". there is nothing here that suggests the killing had anything to do with animal rights. quite the contrary
This is a dubious statement. True, animal rights were not high on Fortuyn's agenda, actually they were there not at all. He ridiculed activists and as far as he was concerned it was a non-topic..
To outsiders it seemed not a issue during the campaign, but within the circles of organizations that were working in the milieu defence etc. there was that dooming scenario to have a prime minister, happily parading in a fur coats. And parading could this bon vivant.
Some months before his death milieu activists had thrown a cake in his face when he arrived at a place where he was invited to give a political talk for the elections. The cake consisted of cow dung, vomit and some other nasty ingredients. I would say the lights turned at that moment on orange, but we didn't want to see it. The police offered him protection for the last part of the campaign. He refused indignantly.
http://www.nisnews.nl/samples/180502/samples.htm
[I]CAKE-THROWERS: The examining magistrate in The Hague on Friday released the three activists who threw cakes containing excrement at Pim Fortuyn last March. The three, who were arrested last Tuesday, are alleged to have links with Fortuyn's suspected murderer, animal rights activist Volkert van der G., but the magistrate saw no grounds for extending their custody.[/I]
"Many people fear that Fortuyn's assassination has strengthened xenophobic feelings in the Netherlands and convinced politicians to adopt an even tougher stand on immigration."
Indeed, it certainly did. The murder has aggravated feelings that were there already for a while. But also other groups became victims of this crime. The sympathy for milieu activist has dropped dramatically among the Dutch population, in our government and in the parliament. Milieu organizations lost many of their donators and members; and we are stuck with a very conservative government with a lame and divided opposition from the left.
(from Committee for a Workers International http://www.worldsocialist-cwi.org/index2.html?/eng/2002/05/07pim.html)
"Much is still unclear about the killing, especially about the motives of the killer. Was it a political motivated assault, or the lone work of a mentally unbalanced gunman?"
That might have been unknown at the moment they wrote this, but after the trial a few more things can be said about this. Volkert was certainly not a mentally unbalanced person. The judges ordered a profound psychological examination. Volkert was observed during a month in a psychiatric institute and he was cooperating quite well. The outcome was that the psychiatrists could not find a serious mental defect in Volkert
"Pim Fortuyn played on the issue of immigrants and crime, and talked about the "backward" culture of Islam, as a way to whip up anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant feelings."
Yes, he did talk about the backwardness of the present culture of Islam. He despised that. He rejected the view that Islamic women had to wear special clothes and that husbands had the right to hit their wives or that daughters were forced into marriages. He despised their condemnation of homosexuals. He called that backward and a bad influence for a liberal democratic country. Later, when he was severely criticized about that word he admitted that it would be better if he had used the phrase 'behind the times'. I don't think he did this to stir anti-muslim feelings, he was sincerely indignant . Although it had sometimes the effect that it stirred nasty sentiments in racist minded people. And that was surely a good reason to be on our guard.
It is also be good to realize that Pim Fortuyn was an overt homosexual who had no problem at all to talk freely about his love affairs. He hated dishonesty and loved freedom. I'm still very impressed the way he opened up himself in this field and was able to win people for him that I never had thought possible.
"Socialists point out that even if a deranged individual killed Pim Fortuyn, this has to be seen in context of conditions created by capitalist society."
Who said that? Give me a break. I cannot imagine you support such a view.
(from CBSNews.com http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/06/world/main508129.shtml)
"Meanwhile in Amsterdam, prosecutors indicated Fortuyn's suspected killer may have been plotting against three other members of his anti-immigration party.
This is new to me. He was suspected of more killing, but that remains unproved. A few years before an inspector of mink farms had been killed in a forest. Volkerts had had some court fight wit this inspector. But up to now they could not find any substantial proof that he was involved in that crime.
(from Time Europe http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901020520-237161,00.html)
"Fortuyn's meteoric rise in just nine months on an anti-immigration platform had dealt a telling blow to the pragmatic consensus seeking that has long defined Dutch politics."
This is again a rather superficial comment. We have had many politicians with views that were most unfriendly to foreigners and who were certainl
(second part of A Dutch Drama)(second part)
(from Time Europe http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901020520-237161,00.html)
"Fortuyn's meteoric rise in just nine months on an anti-immigration platform had dealt a telling blow to the pragmatic consensus seeking that has long defined Dutch politics."
This is again a rather superficial comment. We have had many politicians with views that were most unfriendly to foreigners and who were certainly much more ultra-right-wing orientated than Pim Fortuyn was. They never got the support that Pim Fortuyn got. There were quite different reasons why he became popular. But for his political opponents it was the easiest and cheapest way to turn him into a black sheep. I think it was a very stupid policy to depict him as a foreign or immigrant hater. It led to a growing support for him because it was such a childish behaviour and loose talk of the old political elite, which was so suddenly losing her grip on power and became desperate. Their roses had turned into thorns.
"Fortuyn, 54, was a man for confrontation, not consensus. He wanted to re-establish Dutch border controls and let in refugees only from Britain, Denmark, France and Germany.
Yes, that is why I never would have given him my vote. Although he weakened that view later on.
He sought to dial back the generous disability scheme that supports the roughly 15% of Dutch workers who claim they can't work for medical reasons."
Yes, that is very true. But the majority of the Dutch society realizes we have got a problem here. Nowhere in the world there are so many people sick at home and paid by the government as in Holland..
"Van der Graaf, who is expected to face a murder charge, has not cooperated with prosecutors, leaving his motive unclear.
That was true at the beginning of his detention. One of the reasons he refused to cooperate was his feeling they treated him in a unjust way. He had a camera in his prison, which he righteously asked to be removed. He refused to cooperate under these conditions and started a hunger strike. When this problem was solved he became much more cooperative.
While farm policy was not a central issue for Fortuyn, he is reported to have once said he would lift a current ban on mink farming."
This must have shocked Volkert rather deep. Eleminating the mink farms was the main goal in his life.
(from CNews http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Law/2003/03/27/52354-ap.html)
"Volkert van der Graaf, 33, confessed to shooting Fortuyn outside a radio station May 6, just nine days before elections in which Fortuyn was contending for prime minister, to prevent him from gaining power and carrying out his anti-immigration agenda."
I never read this part and I don't think it is true. Volkert was not obsessed by immigration problems as he was in mink liberation. He had dedicated his whole life to fight the bio-industry and especially the mink farm industry.
"Fortuyn was a brash gay academic who defied stereotypes and drew strong criticism for calling Islam a "backward religion." He blamed rising crime on the Moroccan and Turkish minorities and demanded a moratorium on new immigration."
During his trial, Van der Graaf said he wanted to prevent Fortuyn from hurting weak members of society, comparing his rise to that of Adolf Hitler."
I believe the first part of his statement (whatever he meant with weak members), but the second part is alarming. Fortuyn had nothing to do with Hitler. This is the kind of remark that is killing any discussion and leads nowhere (as he showed by his action). I could show you some links in which Volkert is pictured as Hitler adept. Total bullshit too.
and the only reference to AR right at the end of the article: the prosecutor "Plooy said Van der Graaf, an animal rights activist, killed Fortuyn because Fortuyn promised to lift a ban on breeding animals for fur if elected."
Well, if you realize that his whole life was dedicated to stop the breeding of minks for fur you may understand his growing frustration when he saw Fortuyn's star rising so fast and inevitably.
why you are attempting to suggest that Fortuyn's murder was for animal rights issues, i am not sure. while it is true that van der graaf was recognized as an AR activist, this certainly does not prove that the murder was motivated for AR as was indicated (but not established) by Plooy the prosecutor apparently towards the end of the trial. rather, it seems very plausible that the murder had very strong links with Fortuyn's political positions on immigration.
Why do you think that? Volkert was totally absorbed with saving minks. And for what reason you think the prosecutor stressed the mink link otherwise?
in fact, i think you have made a ficticious link between AR and the murder that even the media is not making.
These media links are rather inaccurate There are much better links. The problem is they are mostly in the Dutch language. But I give you here a link in the English language that may help you to understand that my statement is not as fictitious as you presume.
http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2003/000282.html
There were a couple of new revelations at the appeal. The prosecutor argued that van der Graaf's primary motivation for killing Fortuyn was Fortuyn's promise to lift the ban on fur farms. When questioned about this, van der Graaf conceded that it was a factor in his decision to kill Fortuyn, but that it was not his primary motivation.
[I] My note: this answer may not totally satisfy you. But I think this was as far as Volkert could concede. Admitting that the primary motivation was animals would almost certainly have lengthened the period of his detention.[/I]
you and anyone else can read through the 5 webpages i have referenced and correct me if i am mistaken in this conclusion.
B. assume that the murder was purely AR motivated
let's say that you are correct in your insinuation. let us assume that Van der Graaf killed Fortuyn solely because he was worried about Fortuyn lifting the anti-fur farming ban. how does this justify your stand that we should oppose animal rights because of this action?
No it is not Volkerts deed itself that prompted me to say that, although it is a good reason to ponder about e few things. It was the reaction that arose from his stupid criminal action. The crimetremendously damaged the left wing parties and milieu organizations tremendously. The new Dutch government has become more right wing than ever for whom milieu is an issue of very little importance. And immigrants have a hard time.
The problem was aggravated because left wing parties and media had tried to demonize Pim Fortuyn. His provocative way of arguing made it worse and worse. When he was killed the wrath of his followers turned towards these parties and to the media. Then they got scared (loosing readers and members) and some of them turned almost 180 degrees in opinion.
I am a member of the green party (Groenlinks), a left orientated political milieu party. The anger of the population after the murder was so fierce that the leader of our party had to resign, as did some other political leaders. So many nasty and threatening posts bombarded the forum of this green party that Groenlinks had to remove its forum from internet. (Now, 18 months later, it still hasn't returned).
I am not suggesting that the move to the right is all caused by Volkert's criminal deed. Definitely not, but is was a very nasty contribution to the heated discussions that reached absurdistic levels of total miscommunication..
just because we assume someone has killed someone else over an AR issue, doesn't mean that everyone involved in AR is so polarized that they will go around killing everyone opposed to their view nor does it mean that AR is a violent movement.
You misunderstood me. I was talking about the polarization that arises from one evil deed. You may say, that that is not fair. And maybe you are right, but let us deal with the reality. The consequences were severe and polarizing.
every movement has its extremists and it is unfortunate when people jump to conclusions about the movement based on the actions of this particular segment when the vast majority of the movement condemns violence. if we think otherwise, it should be obvious that no one should belong to any movement of any sort (that has a 'divergence' of opinions within it) for fear of being guilty by association.
I agree here with you. But at the same time we should be vigilant about the extreme exponents in our own party. It is not difficult to blame the foe. But it takes a bit more courage to criticize wrong movements done by our friends or us.
C. polarization
your statement about granting rights contributing to further polarization suggests that whenever rights are granted there will be polarization. while this may be true in many cases, it doesn't mean that people can't overcome their differences, nor does it mean that polarization is a bad thing.
I agree about, that but it was not meant as a general remark, it is directed this specific incident. You may feel I exaggerate. Maybe this is just a very bad unhappy event that will never repeat itself and will dissolve in time and space. I hope so. But we better explore what happened than to put our heads wishfully in a desert of sand.
history is filled with rights of all sorts being granted (after being fought for sometimes) and people being polarized afterwards. it is absurd to think we presently meld together like homogenized butter: there will always be polarization under the present circumstances because people do have a difference of opinion.
For sure.
[b]to associate polar
(third part of A Dutch Drama)(third part)
history is filled with rights of all sorts being granted (after being fought for sometimes) and people being polarized afterwards. it is absurd to think we presently meld together like homogenized butter: there will always be polarization under the present circumstances because people do have a difference of opinion.
For sure.
to associate polarization with violence (a fallacy in itself) and thereby try to prevent it negates any process of progression. to deny rights to any group on that basis is purely a self-serving rationale that maintains the status quo.
Yes, but it is a black and white picture. Status quo is anyway non-existing. Panta rhei.
finally, you do not mention the possibility that by granting animal rights society might actually become depolarized and there would be fewer conflicts in this area. we have been depolarized from robbing and murdering each other (to some extent) not just because we fear the consequences, but because we believe that people have rights not to be so violated.
If you can convince me that animal rights are the best way to get a more peaceful world I am on your side. I have expressed my doubts in several posts. Maybe I am wrong. As I said before I'm quite willing to bend if that is the best we can get.
[b]The reality is that animals have been granted some rights because people agree that they should not be abused. as the realization grows, so will the extent of these rights. it is not the 'wrong' tool as you, yourself say you will vote in favor of - it is the right tool, which is no doubt one reason that they are called 'rights'. 🙂 [b]
Hm, is the snake biting its tail here? I stop fighting about that with you. Rather put my energy, together with you, in animal welfare 🙂
Originally posted by fjordfjord,
If you can convince me that animal rights are the best way to get a more peaceful world I am on your side. I have expressed my doubts in several posts. Maybe I am wrong. As I said before I'm quite willing to bend if that is the best we can get.
...
Hm, is the snake biting its tail here? I stop fighting about that with you. Rather put my energy, together with you, in animal welfare 🙂
thank you for first going to the extensive length to comment on my internet 'research'. i appreciate the trouble you took as well as the tolerance you show me for not understanding this 'third' hand information.
i know that the internet is full of misleading information and that is why i deliberately selected sources that had no association with AR (btw that one link you provided that is in english which claims the crime was AR motived, animalrights.net, does happen to be an anti-AR site). additionally, i stated that i am more than willing to be corrected regarding the motive of the crime. i do not doubt now that you have a clearer grasp of the actual situation than i would from the internet - i merely objected to the connection you made without any references, which of course wouldn't have done me any good since i wouldn't be able to read them 😀
again, i am appreciative of your efforts both towards the 'issue' and towards me.
bbarr's posts have strengthened my beliefs regarding AR, but what is important is that we not use all our energies in this 'in-house' difference of opinion and remember imvegan's words that " What counts is the actions we take not what we say we believe."
as such, i consider it an honour to be able to stand beside you in this cause that is important to both of us 🙂
in friendship,
prad
PETA’s New Comic for Kids - a Real-Life Horror Story!
PETA activists - including cuddly, costumed raccoons and foxes - are making guest appearances outside performances of The Nutcracker across the country this holiday season with a cheeky message of compassion. As children arrive to see the "Dance of the Sugarplum Fairy," some will be unaware that their mothers are already starring in a real-life horror story! PETA will be there to greet any fur-clad moms and their children with their newest anti-fur leaflet-PETA Comics presents..."Your Mommy Kills Animals!"
Kids will see the bloody truth behind their moms’ pretentious pelts. Accompanied by graphic photographs of skinned carcasses and animals languishing on fur farms, children will read: "Lots of wonderful foxes, raccoons, and other animals are kept by mean farmers who squish them into cages so small that they can hardly move. They never get to play or swim or have fun. All they can do is cry-just so your greedy mommy can have that fur coat to show off in when she walks the streets."
From PETA's website...can anyone say Pepole For The Ethical Treatment of our Children
1 edit
Originally posted by chaswrayi cannot defend this since i neither agree with it nor find it appropriate (to put it mildly):
From PETA's website...can anyone say Pepole For The Ethical Treatment of our Children
A. young kids did not have anything to do with buying the fur
B. it is unlikely they will have any influence on their parents anyway
C. it could be very shocking to them
it is particularly for reason C that i kept animal abuse issues from my son till he was old enough to handle it, find out for himself and make up his own mind.
i have written to peta to see if i can learn more about what this is about and will post the information when i find out about it.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfI don't think PETA has anything to do with this comic... I think it is smear... If it is PETA's work... they are as messed up as I always thought.
i cannot defend this since i neither agree with it nor find it appropriate (to put it mildly):
A. young kids did not have anything to do with buying the fur
B. it is unlikely they will have any influence on their parents anyway
C. it could be very shocking to them
it is particularly for reason C that i kept animal abuse issues from my son till he was ...[text shortened]... at this is about and will post the information when i find out about it.
in friendship,
prad
http://www.furisdead.com/momfur.html
That is where you can find the info, it is not a PETA site as far as I can tell. I wouldn't be surprised if PETA members are in on it, but I think any letter pradtf gets back will just say this comic has nothing to do with PETA as an organization.
P
2 edits
Originally posted by Phlabibiti don't think creating and distributing the comic makes them messed up at all. it will tell the truth about what happens to the animals.
I don't think PETA has anything to do with this comic... I think it is smear... If it is PETA's work... they are as messed up as I always thought.
however, i think, it is plain wrong to distribute these images to young kids regardless of whether 'mommy wears fur'.
i wouldn't be surprised if this is just a publicity stunt for the purpose of attracting a lot of media which it is certain to do, but it goes no further.
for instance, i know that peta did a 'got milk' commercial parody called 'got beer'. it generated lots of publicity, but when MADD (mothers against drunk driving) complained that they were advocating alcohol abuse, peta withdrew the campaign - which i thought was rather decent of them.
so, i hope this is nothing more than something similar and that there will be no actual distribution to young kids.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by PhlabibitYou may find this alao at:
I don't think PETA has anything to do with this comic... I think it is smear... If it is PETA's work... they are as messed up as I always thought.
http://www.furisdead.com/momfur.html
That is where you can find the info, it is not a PETA site as far as I can tell. I wouldn't be surprised if PETA members are in on it, but I think any letter pradtf gets back will just say this comic has nothing to do with PETA as an organization.
P
http://www.peta.org/
That would appear to be PETA's sight along with some disturbing "cartoon" aimed at children and the letter they are handing out. I'm all for treating animals humanely, in fact I just came in from filling my deer and bird feeders on a cold snowy day, but...I care a bit more about children folks. And this is a tad bit extremist. It has also been reported on the news today as the work of PETA
Originally posted by pradtfC. it could be very shocking to them
i cannot defend this since i neither agree with it nor find it appropriate (to put it mildly):
A. young kids did not have anything to do with buying the fur
B. it is unlikely they will have any influence on their parents anyway
C. it could be very shocking to them
it is particularly for reason C that i kept animal abuse issues from my son till he was ...[text shortened]... at this is about and will post the information when i find out about it.
in friendship,
prad
Excuse me ...could be very shocking to them? God help the person that hands that or anything like it to one of my grandchildren.
Merry Christmas
Charlie
Originally posted by chaswraywe do not have a disagreement here, charlie. i thought i made that clear - no one has any business subjecting these images to young kids in comic books, tv, internet or what have you.
C. it could be very shocking to them
Excuse me ...could be very shocking to them?
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfI understood that 😵 This issue just has my dander up since I first heard about it earlier. Another example of people not thinking of the end result
we do not have a disagreement here, charlie. i thought i made that clear - no one has any business subjecting these images to young kids in comic books, tv, internet or what have you.
in friendship,
prad
Hope you have a happy holiday season
Charlie