2 edits
Originally posted by KneverKnightYou claimed earlier that it was wrong to engage in direct action because whatever rights animals have are not innate but are merely granted to them. Now you claim that it is moot whether this claim of yours is actually true. But, of course, if your point is moot then it can't support your earlier argument. In the same breath, however, you claim that human rights trump animal rights, without ever clarifying whether you take human rights to be innate or granted. Further, you never argue for the claim that human rights trump animal rights, you merely assert it. I'm sure many would agree with you that the right of a human to continue living trumps the rights of an animal to continue living, because human life is generally more valuable than animal life. But this is irrelevant to the case of direct action against those who wear fur or sell it, as their lives don't dependent on wearing fur or selling it. Further, in order for your claim about the trumping of rights to be relevant, you must hold that the right of a human to wear fur for the sake of their vanity trumps the right of an animal not to be killed and skinned. But if you believe this, then you are committed to the claim that it would be permissible for me to go pick up a puppy from the pound, take it home and skin it, just to make myself a fancy puppy-skin hat. If you think this is permissible, then I think you are a disgusting human being. If you think this would be impermissible, then you can't believe that a fur wearer has a right to wear fur that trumps the right of animal not to be killed and skinned.
I'm not arguing against the humane treatment of animals, in the case of livestock, as better methods are invented (eg to prevent flystrike) they should be adopted for many reasons, practical and ethical. Whether animals have innate ri ...[text shortened]... )
In I'dbettercovermyassbeforeIactlikeaherosheep
KneverKnight
In Youbetterstopcontradictingyourselfifyouwanttobetakenseriouslyship,
Bennett
1 edit
Originally posted by pradtfNICK GRIMM: Okay Matt Rice, some might say that what you've done is blackmail the Abercrombie and Fitch chain by threatening them with negative advertising. What do you say
steerpike,
in your repeated efforts to say not nice things about this boycott (or whatever you see fit to call it), PETA, animal rights advocates, and certain individuals posting here, you seem to not want to consider that maybe the retai ...[text shortened]... t their wool through this kind of cruelty.
in friendship,
prad
Note the statement that Abercrombie was threatened with negative advertising is never denied. Rice says they were hesitant at first and then changed their mind.
Media reports say the retailer was threatened with being the subject of graphic newspaper advertisements. I see nothing here to contradict this report.
When we are talking about a group that includes violent and irrational criminals, it is think is better to be truthful than nice.
Whatever my beliefs, I don't have the right to attack other people who disagree with me. Direct action is bullying and intimidating; to condone it is to say that might makes right and we might as well stop discussing this, there is no point in talking to a bully. I either agree, or I get pounded. You can say that I'm disgusting, it's OK.
As far as the question of rights being granted/invented or innate, that might make a good thread on its own, if people are interested in talking about that. I'm going to be busy for the next week or so and my computer time will be limited, however.
Originally posted by bbarrI brought me a nice puppyskin hat last week and it sure is purdy! And the rest of the puppy: Delicious!
You claimed earlier that it was wrong to engage in direct action because whatever rights animals have are not innate but are merely granted to them. Now you claim that it is moot whether this claim of yours is actually true. But, of course, if your point is moot then it can't support your earlier argument. In the same breath, however, you claim that ...[text shortened]... nd skinned.
In Youbetterstopcontradictingyourselfifyouwanttobetakenseriouslyship,
Bennett
Originally posted by steerpike
Media reports say the retailer was threatened with being the subject of graphic newspaper advertisements. I see nothing here to contradict this report.
i'm not trying to contradict the media report that PETA threatened to publish graphics of mutilated lambs etc. regardless of whether it is true or not. the point i'm making is that A & F may have just made up their own minds after seeing what actually does happen on the farm.
also, why would anyone try to keep these images from the public in the first place? they aren't lies. this is how mulesing is done.
surely the public can be allowed to see the mutilations these sheep endure as well as the hideous conditions on the ships and make up their own minds as to whether they will or won't buy their wool from organizations who do these things to the animals?
When we are talking about a group that includes violent and irrational criminals, it is think is better to be truthful than nice.
i agree. however, there seems to be increasing doubt as to who is really being violent and even irrational. it seems to me that PETA is exposing them - they are not being nice and they are telling the truth.
in friendship,
prad
6 edits
Originally posted by KneverKnighti agree with you - might shouldn't make right.
Direct action is bullying and intimidating; to condone it is to say that might makes right.
however, are you saying that PETA is engaging in bullying and intimidation because they want the public to know that sheep are treated this way? are you saying that this information should be kept from the public?
in friendship,
prad
kneverknight to bbarr: You can say that I'm disgusting, it's OK.
bbarr didn't say you were disgusting.
i think you have also made it clear that you are opposed to cruelty towards animals as well as bullying and intimidation. however, i think what may be sought here is a little extension of protection - to the bullying, intimidation, exploitation, mutilation, torture and death of some of those creatures who are less able to defend themselves against this treatment.
1 edit
Originally posted by KneverKnightIt seems to me that the bully is this situation is the person who kills and skins animals for the sake of profit, and those that wear the corpses of animals for the sake of their vanity. I think most AR activists would prefer to discuss the matter, which is why we traditionally argue our case, push for legislation, and so on. But many of us have found that even when we point out to people the contradictions in their way of thinking, their lack of arguments, and so on, these people still say things like "it is my opinion that human rights trump animal rights", apparently thinking that because it is their opinion, there is nothing further to say on the matter (or worse, that morality itself is mere opinion, and thus there is nothing that can be established concerning how we ought to treat animals). When confronted with such ignorance, we have realized that further debate will probably not succeed without the application of coercive force. Hence, we attack the property of the greedy and the vain and the cruel. These people may not be able to follow arguments, but the listen carefully to their pocketbook.
Whatever my beliefs, I don't have the right to attack other people who disagree with me. Direct action is bullying and intimidating; to condone it is to say that might makes right and we might as well stop discussing this, there is no ...[text shortened]... the next week or so and my computer time will be limited, however.
Originally posted by bbarrGood points, I'll concede you've made me think about animal rights issues, but I doubt whether I'll ever be able to condone direct action in this matter. Legislation, public awareness (I never said that PETA or anyone else should be barred from making a public case-this is more in answer to Prad actually), these are the avenues that I think should be used to effect change.
It seems to me that the bully is this situation is the person who kills and skins animals for the sake of profit, and those that wear the corpses of animals for the sake of their vanity. I think most AR activists would prefer to discuss the matter, which is why we traditionally argue our case, push for legislation, and so on. But many of us have found that e ...[text shortened]... These people may not be able to follow arguments, but the listen carefully to their pocketbook.
Regards
KneverKnight
1 edit
Originally posted by KneverKnightI agree with you that might does not make right. Personally, I would not spray paint someone’s coat. However, I would not deny the cause is just. My point is you’re focusing on the “might does not make right” with respect to animal rights activists and there is very little discussion from you about the sheep. To me, the mutilation, torture and murder of millions of sheep is a much greater case of “might does not make right”. There is no comparison in terms of the enormity of the crime!
Whatever my beliefs, I don't have the right to attack other people who disagree with me. Direct action is bullying and intimidating; to condone it is to say that might makes right and we might as well stop discussing this, there is no point in talking to a bully. I either agree, or I get pounded.
in peace
Ranjana
2 edits
Originally posted by KneverKnightI didn't see this post before I posted above.
Good points, I'll concede you've made me think about animal rights issues, but I doubt whether I'll ever be able to condone direct action in this matter. Legislation, public awareness (I never said that PETA or anyone else should be ...[text shortened]... I think should be used to effect change.
Regards
KneverKnight
in peace
Ranjana
Originally posted by imveganI'm not arguing against humane treatment for animals. Of course, what different people mean by "humane" is another topic. In the case of sheep dying on a ship, you really have to wonder what the hell is going on as it is not only an affront to one's senses because of the needless suffering, but what business sense could there be? (Unless they were insured, but wouldn't the insurance company refuse to pay because the sheep were recklessly endangered?)
I agree with you that might does not make right. Personally, I would not spray paint someone’s coat. However, I would not deny the cause is just. My point is you’re focusing on the “might does not make right” with respect to animal rights activists and there is very little discussion from you about the sheep. To me, the mutilation, torture and murder o ...[text shortened]... ake right”. There is no comparison in terms of the enormity of the crime!
in peace
Ranjana
Regards
KneverKnight
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrSo spray painting someone is not attacking someone? No - it is called direct action. When an euphemism like that is used, the person is ashamed and wants to deny what they are doing.
First, nobody is talking about attacking anybody. The idea is to spray-paint the coat. I'm not ruling out the idea that leather would be a target. Most leather goods are made from the the remains of animals killed at slaughterhouses for f ...[text shortened]... ed, feel free to continue saying whatever you wish. 😀
Cheers!
Your logic is that by eating the animal I decrease the moral transgression of wearing its skin. So it is justified to attack fur wearers because they did not eat the animal which made the coat? I don't think logic plays much part in your argument here.
Once we rule out logic as a motivation for actions. we have to look at more primitive motives. Your posts refer to a woman wearing a fur coat , and say she must be punished for her greed and vanity. It is nearly always woman who wear fur - is it because you prefer to abuse and bully woman that you focus on fur and not leather?
Originally posted by steerpikeYou may call it an attack if you wish. I'll admit that it is meant to be intimidating, and that it is meant to scare people who sell fur and wear fur. I don't call it an attack because the point isn't to harm the person wearing the fur, but to destroy their property. I'll call it an attack on property with the intent to intimidate, if you wish. I certainly am in no way ashamed of this.
So spray painting someone is not attacking someone? No - it is called direct action. When an euphemism like that is used, the person is ashamed and wants to deny what they are doing.
Your logic is that by eating the animal I decrease the moral transgression of wearing its skin. So it is justified to attack fur wearers because they did not eat the ani ...[text shortened]... r fur - is it because you prefer to abuse and bully woman that you focus on fur and not leather?
I'm sorry, did I claim that it lessened the moral transgression? I claimed the following:
I'm not ruling out the idea that leather would be a target. Most leather goods are made from the the remains of animals killed at slaughterhouses for food, so there is a dual purpose here that may, prima facie, mitigate the seriousness of your offense. Further, since the leather is a byproduct, its production may be combatted by attacking the meat-production industry directly, rather than by the vastly decentralized leather retailing industry.
Please note that I did not rule out leather as a target. Further, please note that I claimed it may be the case that eating the animal as well as using it's skin mitigates the seriousness of the transgression. I'm not sure about that point, however, which is why I claimed it was a prima facie consideration. Further, I claimed that there are more effective ways of attacking that particular target (for instance, by attacking the industry that results in leather as a byproduct).
I don't discriminate. I relish punishing all those who exploit animals for the sake of their own greed and vanity. If a man wears fur, he is also a target, as are the retailers of fur. I feel similarly about large leather coats, however. Shoes are harder to hit with spray paint, and they rarely cost as much as coats, so they are less desirable as targets.
I guess I should ask you: is it because you prefer to see animals suffer and die for your greed and vanity that you eat meat and wear animal products, or is your callousness merely the result of ignorance?
Cheers!
Originally posted by bbarrWhy just animals? Aren't plants living things as well? Don't they have rights, too? Therefore, isn't someone who eats a carrot or wears a fig leaf is committing a moral transgression as well?
You may call it an attack if you wish. I'll admit that it is meant to be intimidating, and that it is meant to scare people who sell fur and wear fur. I don't call it an attack because the point isn't to harm the person wearing the fur, but to destroy their property. I'll call it an attack on property with the intent to intimidate, if you wish. I certa ...[text shortened]... meat and wear animal products, or is your callousness merely the result of ignorance?
Cheers!