Article about being humane (sic)

[LaParka]

Just thought you should all have a read of this article. I stumbled across whilst writing an article about alternatives to vivisection http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA7BC.htm

If you don't want to read it here are a few choice quotes

Making animals suffer is generally a bad thing - unless it's done for the good of humanity.

In any case, you can't exercise rights unless you have the wit to understand them - which animals do not.

And it is socially unacceptable nowadays to fry your gerbil, but this has nothing to do with the gerbil having rights. It's purely to do with what it means to be human.

We have no duties or responsibilities to animals. We have a responsibility to ourselves, as humans, to behave humanely, by not causing suffering for fun. We should object to tearing the wings off butterflies, not because the butterfly has a right to hang on to its wings, but because it degrades us to amuse ourselves by inflicting pain on something.

To breed cows and chickens for food and keep them in crowded cages all their lives may be distasteful to some humans, but it doesn't mean much to the animal.

and the final nail in the coffin is the description of the author:

Jan Bowman was a vegan for 10 years, before it became fashionable. Now she works as an illustrator, and will eat anything.

[epski]

Doesn't mean much to the animal?!?!

*sigh*

Damn lapsed vegans...

[Blue Plastic Straw]

Reads like an elaborate justification by someone who started wanted to eat animals again and not feel bad about it.

By this same logic there should be no laws against abusing infants under two, because they don't have any frame of reference for their suffering.

[Irizary]

Damn lapsed vegans...

My guess is she was one of those "vegans" who ate fish and chicken.

Anyway, she's just ignorant about animal sentience and intelligence. For example, this is simply not true: "Even the higher apes can only manage a very limited form of thought, less than that of a two-year-old child."

[delicious]

Now she works as an illustrator, and will eat anything.

Will she eat sh*t? Cause I'd like to see that.

[BoricuaVeggie]

ugh I hate sh*t like this article. it just makes unintelligent people believe that animals were put on this Earth to serve our every need... :brood:

[Skylark]

We have no duties or responsibilities to animals. We have a responsibility to ourselves, as humans, to behave humanely, by not causing suffering for fun. We should object to tearing the wings off butterflies, not because the butterfly has a right to hang on to its wings, but because it degrades us to amuse ourselves by inflicting pain on something.

She was right about something. It is degrading to a person to receive amusement from inflicting pain on another creature. She's wrong that that's the only reason a person shouldn't inflict pain.

[Amy SF]

Personally, I don't care if vegetarians and vegans change their minds and start eating animal flesh again and decide that it's ok to wire electrodes onto dog testicles or whatever, that's their personal choice, but why do they have to announce their conversion (or re-conversion) to the world as if they've been suddenly touched by Jesus and seen the errors of their ways? What's sad is that to omnis these people look like sane, rational people who *finally* came to their senses, and the rest of us look like weirdo hippie fanatics...

[weird2twiggy]

:no:

[Qwerks]

I will not be harssing Jan Bowman over this article. It's not because she has a right to spew whatever nonsense she wishes, it's because she's not worth the effort.

[The Rev]

If only the power of rationalization could be harnessed, and used to operate electrical generators. Pollution would be thing of the past (well, at least environmental pollution).

:rolleyes:

The Rev

[Jes]

May I never become like that.

[Kurmudgeon]

Personally, I don't care if vegetarians and vegans change their minds and start eating animal flesh again and decide that it's ok to wire electrodes onto dog testicles or whatever, that's their personal choice, but why do they have to announce their conversion (or re-conversion) to the world as if they've been suddenly touched by Jesus and seen the errors of their ways? What's sad is that to omnis these people look like sane, rational people who *finally* came to their senses, and the rest of us look like weirdo hippie fanatics...

Why do some have to announce that they don't care if veg*ns go back to consuming the flesh of slaughtered animals? Perhaps because they don't really give a flying **** about animals beyond their own partaking in the exploitation and killing of them, and so they get a place on the "tolerance" bandwagon.

[Kiz]

I'm glad I wasn't the only one shocked by that. You'd really be ok if people wired electrodes to dog's genitals simply because it was their peronal choice?

[VegKitten84]

It's fashionable to be vegan? Sweet! I'm freakin chic now . . .

There are so many things I would say but mostly I just feel like banging my head against the wall. I myself believe animals understand alot more than we give them credit for but that's not the point, they can suffer and it is undeniable so to say that causing something pain and suffering doesn't mean anything to it . . .I don't know, my mind just doesn't work that way to be able to understand it I guess.

[*Star*Lass*]

Will she eat sh*t? Cause I'd like to see that.

:lol:

[desolationangel]

You know, it's lapsed veg*ns who are the worst. I think because they know what they're doing is wrong, and they feel they have to defend it more.

[Sokara]

Will she eat sh*t? Cause I'd like to see that.

That's one animal product I'll never have to moan over.

[Sokara]

The "Stop apologising for animal experiments" article is pretty bad too.

"However abhorrent their ideas, animal rights activists should have the right to express their views, and even to make a few phone calls, however threatening."

"The anti-vivisectionists' campaigns of harassment and intimidation,"

"But millions of animals have been and will be used in experiments; they will be cut open, pumped full of toxins and carcinogens, and ultimately 'destroyed', in order to further scientific knowledge and save human lives.

For sentimental reasons some may find this treatment distasteful."

http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/0000000CA7E4.htm


I guess I'm just not violent enough or sentimental enough to be an animal rights activist :cry:

[Irizary]

To breed cows and chickens for food and keep them in crowded cages all their lives may be distasteful to some humans, but it doesn't mean much to the animal.

There's vast evidence that it in fact DOES mean much to the animals to be kept in crowded cages all their lives - many injure themselves trying to break free of their cages, they cannibalize, they exhibit self-destructive behaviors, they get sick far more often than free animals, and so on. Her statement flies in the face of all observation about intensively reared farm animals. This is someone who would look at an obviously suffering veal calf chewing on his pen and say "it doesn't mean much" because the calf can't say with words how much he's suffering.