Debate and Discussion

Animal Rights vs Conservation...
Lonnehart at 10:20PM, July 27, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,484
joined: 3-16-2006
Are they the same thing to you? Are there differences between them? How do you react when someone claims to be both a conservationist and an animal rights person? And are they really good for the animals themselves?

Long ago I used to think they were both the same as they both promoted the survival of the diversity of life on earth. However, the actions of one group (not going to even mention them) have caused me to tell the difference between the two. So now I tend to think that most animal rights people are crazed vegetarians who not only want to preserve the animals of the world, but they also want to take Humanity entirely out of the equation… or at least devolve us into huge gut plant eaters… Anyways, what… er… say you?
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:38PM
lothar at 12:55AM, July 28, 2008
(online)
posts: 1,299
joined: 1-3-2006
it seems to me that many of these animal rights people, like a lot of activists, are just emotional freaks , that jump on whatever fad happens to be in style. look at all the stuff we heard about the Amazon back in the 90s, now that they are chewing up the forest for “biofuel” we don't hear much of anything. the forest is still getting raped , maybe more so than ever. but it's not in style anymore.
i hear about the forests of Sumatra getting razed to produce palm oil and all people seem to be concerned about are the tigers and elephants . those animals can survive in zoos . what about the forest itself, that is far more of a loss than a couple of large mammals.
anybody that just focuses on one particular animal is missing the big picture . our very existence on this planet, our selfishness as a species, pretty much gaurantees that most other species will be marginalized and extinguished. eventually.
Peta and other animal rights groups are just bailing water out of the titanic. unless there is a fundemental shift in human thinking in regards to nature, the Biosphere of this world is doomed. Humans have evolved over millions of years of struggle AGAINST Nature, theres no way that's going to change over one or two generations. sure some people , mostly anybody on the internet, live in a more gentle world where they have the material comfort and access to information. those people can come to some sort of apreciation of nature and feel bad about it's destruction. but we are still contributing to the Earths destruction, ven more so than other humans. and the middle men, the people of poorer nations , people struggling to survive, people WE employ to maintain OUR high standard of living, do you think those people care ? would you care that the forests are burning and poor animals are dying , if your own children are starving?\
it's a pyramid - we are stanging on their backs , and they are standing on the animals backs . we decide to look down at the animals and feel pitty for them , without noticing our fellow humans , without taking them into account. and who's at the top of the pyramid, above us ? who do we “consumers” prop up?
Companies ! faceless , soulless , imortall , imaginary, machines .

the pyramid is like this

company
consumer
human
animal
forest
the sun

so basicaly , any effort to save any particular part of Nature is fundementaly a battle against the machine of money. unless they can overpower the rule of the companies , there is no hope for life on Earth !!!


last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM
ozoneocean at 4:00AM, July 28, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,799
joined: 1-2-2006
lothar
so basicaly , any effort to save any particular part of Nature is fundementaly a battle against the machine of money. unless they can overpower the rule of the companies , there is no hope for life on Earth !!!
I agree with your ideas there and the pyramid characterisation is inspired. But I don't think you ultimately have to destroy the structure to change things I might be easier just to get the companies to change, to work more with the diverse classes and nature. Things have already ostensibly started to change in a lot of ways due to consumer pressure and perception- the biofuels is a huge F***up though.

-Lothar is right about companies being faceless machines at the top. That might sound silly initially, because they're made up of people who are consumers and they serve consumers, but the thing is when you're part of a company they demand a different sort of loyalty. These things are set up in such a way that they serve themselves. And human nature is such that we identify with the place we work and the people we work with like our tribe, or pack-mates or something… :)
Which is why you have idiots being loyal to companies even when they're being hurt by them, or they hurt people as part of their duty to the company. etc.
:)


————
Anyway, yes. PETA becomes a whipping boy … which isn't good. Yeah, I don't like the crazies that make radical statements and basically ruin the image of the idea of animal protection for everyone. But it's not healthy to hate them.
-Basically, we have morons on both side and just as some idiots go too far in the name of PETA, people who are equally stupid, if not much MORE so advocate terrible cruelty and INhuman practises just to spite that group or to make themselves feel better about their own “animal” barely-human natures.

This:
-Radical PETA activists with no sense of perspective = MORONS.
-Animal hating humanists that see no-human animals as nothing but mindless fodder to dispose with however they wish = scum who don't belong within the human race.

Interestingly, that first group would have a similar personality type to terrorists. But with the second, it's known that psychotics and serial killers tend to enjoy torturing animals because they lack empathy.

There's always a middle ground :)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:31PM
Ronson at 5:07AM, July 28, 2008
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
What drives me crazy is somewhat unrelated, but I think a good example of our ability to hold two or more completely contradictory beliefs…

There are people who think that anyone who abuses a dog - or, sometimes, a cat - should be criminally prosecuted as strictly as if it were a person. The thought process of this is something like “I have a dog. I love my dog. He's part of my family. If I abuse it, I'm abusing a member of my family. Therefore, abusing a dog is like abusing a person.”

These same people have no problem with then going on to eat their beef, chicken or pork, regardless of the rampant abuse in the meat industry. Naturally, this is because these people have never had a cow, chicken or pig as a pet. So no emotional connection is made.

There is no rational connection. You theoretically COULD have a very similar emotional connection to a cow, chicken, or pig, but basic lifestyles prevent that from occurring very often.

My problem with this is not that they wish a harsh penalty for animal abusers, but that they only wish for it when they can identify with the victim.

(Many do this toward their fellow humans as well, of course, and it drives me crazy as well. The “let them starve” attitude of upper and middle class to those struggling in the lower classes that has become the hallmark of the Conservative class is disturbing mostly because these people can't identify with the poor because they think they could never be poor.)

This type of thinking has actually created some purely emotional legislation, and I think that it harms our entire judicial system. Adding additional penalties to a crime because it's deemed a “hate crime” seems entirely emotion based with very little logic to guide a judge and jury. Many animal abuse laws are similar in this emotional appeal.

Why is shooting your own dog different from killing cows with high speed hammers? In the United States, the first can get you in jail while the second is standard operating procedure.

ANOTHER THING…

Why is eating a cow acceptable, and euthanizing stray dogs and cremating them something that most people think makes sense? Why not use the dogs (and cats) for food?

I'm a vegetarian, and decisions like this don't affect me personally. But I don't see anything but the emotional difference between eating a cow or a dog.

People think “you're not eating my dog!” and somehow there's an illogical leap to “you aren't eating any dogs” and legislation to that effect is created.

That emotional leap will never occur with enough people in regards to cows, so the laws will never address that.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
ozoneocean at 5:37AM, July 28, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,799
joined: 1-2-2006
The “emotional” stuff is an extremely important part of the human cultural make up. logic is largely artificial to our way of thinking, -while it has a strong place in science and problem solving, it has little place in daily life, law, language, culture etc. Humans are not a mechanical, computer powered binary, yes/no, black/white species, nor is any species. The way we think and communicate is “us” projected onto “others” in order to understand other people and other species or whatever: -empathy, as they say. ;)

This is why Western culture likes dogs and cats, because they were brought into the home millennia ago so people are able to identify with them when they see them elsewhere. Not so pigs and cows because they're not part of families. We have a hierarchy of care because that's part of our pack/tribe mentality: Family first, then community, then country, then language group, then species… Just for example.
That's not good or bad, it's just a fact of our make-up as humans.

But, our ability to show empathy towards others, be they “friend” animals like cats and dogs, or neighbours, or whoever, for whatever reason is a strength to be celebrated, not a weakness or a failing to be decried.
-and this is borne out strongly when you realise that the sorts of people who tend to lack that empathy are also the ones who tend to have very little scruples about killing and maiming their fellow humans or sentencing many to a dire fate of some kind.

-THAT is NOT black and white either, life isn't simple, humans aren't simple, what we think of as hypocrisy and contradiction is often just part of our inability to recognise or deal this complexity and negotiation that continues on a daily basis… but you should tend to beware people with overly logical plans about how things should be.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:31PM
Croi Dhubh at 10:38AM, July 28, 2008
(offline)
posts: 1,202
joined: 11-16-2007
Animal rights and conservation are pretty much hand and hand in my book. As a huge supporter of hunting, fishing, and outdoor hobbies, my payment for licenses is going to fund those land projects. If it weren't for hunters and fishermen, we wouldn't have state parks. We were the first conservationists. I'm not talking about the ones who thought they could just mow through all the animals they wanted to because they were actually the minority, just like today.

I have no problem with someone eating a dog or a cat. It's not my culture and I probably wouldn't do it, but hey…good for you if it is. I've seen emotional connections made with a cow, a goat, and a chicken. Originally these animals were bought for food, but became family pets. Of course, I lived in an area where we had horse trails next to the road instead of sidewalks, so I won't say this is common here in America, but I will say it is normal.

The difference here with the “emotional” and the “okay to eat meat” is actually not as trivial as some people would like to think. The issue is when someone beats a dog for sport, essentially torturing it until the animal dies compared dropping a cow with a bolt straight the brain which was raised for food. Beating on an animal because you are mad isn't acceptable. Burying a cat up to the neck and running it over with a lawn mower isn't acceptable. Milking a cow is acceptable (it actually is GOOD for the cow). Quickly snapping or cutting the head off a chicken which you are going to eat is acceptable (pretty painless when done correctly).

What I find irrational are the people who are all for spending $800 dollars for killing a baby human, but want vicious animals to stay alive and scream that eating animals is murder…go figure.
Liberate Tutemae Ex Inferis
Moderatio est Figmentum: Educatio est Omnium Efficacissima Forma Rebellionis

http://weblog.xanga.com/CroiDhubh - Home to the “Chuck E. Cheese Terror” stories
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:54AM
Aurora Moon at 4:30PM, July 28, 2008
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
There's a point where Conservation and Human rights can go hand in hand.

But there's also a certain point where the two goes their separate ways.

I tend to view it as this type of meter:


|Radical. . . .strongly for Animal rights. . . .Normal || Normal. . . . .strongly conversate. . . .Radical||
|_|_|_|_|_|_||_|_|_|_|_|_||_|_|_|_|_|_||_|_|_|_|_|_||_|_|_|_|_|_||_|_|_|_|_|_||_|_|_|_|_|_||_|_|_|_|_|_||_|_|_|_|_|_|
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
Sea_Cow at 7:42PM, July 28, 2008
(offline)
posts: 2,687
joined: 4-5-2007
I'm no Bush fan, but some of this shit gets old after a while. I'm all for not torturing the animals. Rob Zombie is a vegetarian, and he's one of my favorite musicians, so insulting all animal rights activists would be insulting “Hellbilly Deluxe.” However, the types who think that all of humanity deserves to go extinct because we eat meat really disturb me. If that's the case, I guess all carnivorous animals should go extinct, too. That's a great way to show off your “good vibes”, assholes. Why don't you stick with eating fruit and shutting up about it.
I am so happy to finally be back home
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:26PM
Ronson at 8:39PM, July 28, 2008
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
Croi Dhubh
What I find irrational are the people who are all for spending $800 dollars for killing a baby human, but want vicious animals to stay alive and scream that eating animals is murder…go figure.

Sorry, can't let that pass. A fetus isn't a “baby human” as a baby is by definition a born human. Many pro choice people are against legislation preventing abortion, but may never consider it for themselves. There's a difference between personally wanting to do something and not wanting to prevent others from the right to do it.

Though I completely agree that calling the slaughter of an animal “murder” is both incorrect and out of proportion.

As for legislating emotions, I don't agree that morality and ethics are really arbitrary. It seems to me that if you keep your laws restricted to the basics of outlawing stealing - of property, life or reputation - you can logically cover nearly any real crime that needs preventing. It's when you start dipping into the more specific cultural and religious preferences that the troubles start.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
ozoneocean at 10:01PM, July 28, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,799
joined: 1-2-2006
Ronson
As for legislating emotions, I don't agree that morality and ethics are really arbitrary. It seems to me that if you keep your laws restricted to the basics of outlawing stealing - of property, life or reputation - you can logically cover nearly any real crime that needs preventing. It's when you start dipping into the more specific cultural and religious preferences that the troubles start.
I disagree. If we're to go by logic only: what is property? What is crime? A lot of things are are classed as criminal because they go against cultural norms, not because they're logical. If we made laws by a strictly logical process we'd think it'd be a demonic, inhuman, horrible world. lol!

Apply logic to sexual crimes like incest, rape, bestiality, paedophilia… For example. Once you take cultural ethics and emotional responses out of that equation those things could become acceptable- many animals see nothing wrong with such activities.
…I prefer laws as they are thanks very much. Logic has its place, but not in all things.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:31PM
Ronson at 2:59AM, July 29, 2008
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
ozoneocean
Apply logic to sexual crimes like incest, rape, bestiality, paedophilia… For example. Once you take cultural ethics and emotional responses out of that equation those things could become acceptable- many animals see nothing wrong with such activities.

I completely disagree. Rape and incest are theft of life, only subordinate to murder. You can logically agree that these are assaults, and as such should be addressed in that manner.

The problem is that there are crimes like these that have no satisfactory punishment. Or, more to the point, the punishment level is arbitrary unless you assign the punishment rationally. Is there really an emotional ceiling to how badly you want to see a rapist punished? Not for me. But logically, there has to be a consistently applied legal system that doesn't factor in my need for revenge.

There can be a sliding scale: Property Theft < Assault < Manslaughter < Rape < Murder … (incest is only a legal crime when they aren't consenting adults, and is therefore rape). You can have a similar scale for the treatment of animals, where animal rape (bestiality) carries a penalty that isn't as harsh as human rape.

…I prefer laws as they are thanks very much. Logic has its place, but not in all things.

In a legal framework for a society, logic is the only thing that should be used.Of course, we are not purely logical beings, and something we perceive as logical today might be refutable by someone with a better grasp of logic tomorrow.

But if we as a society think that logic is overrated or unnecessary in the foundation of our laws, then we will lose sight of the entire purpose of laws in the first place.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
ozoneocean at 3:29AM, July 29, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,799
joined: 1-2-2006
Ronson
I completely disagree. Rape and incest are theft of life, only subordinate to murder.
That's not logical. Not at all. How does that involve logic? That's based on your feelings, just the way these things should be.

How is punishment even logical? The crime has been committed, it can't be un-committed. Logically you should try and make use of your human resources, not waste them by needlessly killing, harming or imprisoning them. If we're to attempt a logical approach: Individual disrupts the smooth running of their society by acting in ways that cause harm and consternation to others- so you take the individual away from the people they caused harm to and try and “repair” them so they can continue as a productive member of the community once more.
That approach would involve education, training and keeping them in the community (but well away from those they harmed), not punishment.
-But as the emotional beings we are, punishment serves the needs of the victim and the community. Illogical as it is :)

I'm sorry Ronson, but from what I know of law, logic doesn't play that big a role. Laws are based on community standards, ancient ethical laws that have were once preserved in various religions (but religions weren't always their origin), Laws are based on the needs for laws, on current circumstances too, but many many things have influence over the form they take-> mainly the precedence of other laws and punishments hat have been handed down before.

Talk of “logic” in law sounds like a faintly emotional plea for some straightforwardness to a complicated labyrinthine process…
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:31PM
Lonnehart at 6:17AM, July 29, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,484
joined: 3-16-2006
Croi Dhubh
Animal rights and conservation are pretty much hand and hand in my book.

In many ways they do, but there seems to be a difference betweeen the two. Animal conservationists tend to educate the people around them around their cause while the animal rights people go one step further and attempt to shove their beliefs down your throat. Well, that's what I started to think when the eco terrorist organization known as ALF showed up….
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:38PM
Aurora Moon at 7:00AM, July 29, 2008
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
Lonnehart
Croi Dhubh
Animal rights and conservation are pretty much hand and hand in my book.

In many ways they do, but there seems to be a difference between the two. Animal conservationists tend to educate the people around them around their cause while the animal rights people go one step further and attempt to shove their beliefs down your throat. Well, that's what I started to think when the eco terrorist organization known as ALF showed up….

I'm all for animal rights, but I wouldn't shove my beliefs down your throat. :P

Honestly, it really does annoy me when fanatic organizations like PETA and ALF ruins it for the rest of us.

Much like how Fanatic Christians or any other fanatic religious people can ruin the reputation of people who happens to believe in the same religion, huh?

And while I don't eat meat that often, I still do eat meat. and so I'm an animal rights person who happens to *gasp* recognize the fact that humans ARE animals, and just like every other animal, we do need to eat a variety of foods in order to stay healthy. So if we skipped completely out on meat we wouldn't be healthy at all.

So basically… I don't really treat animals like Humans, but I do prefer that my food comes from humane places that doesn't needlessly abuse animals, etc. The animals have an right to living an happy, comfortable life before they ‘buy the farm’ for an variety of reasons. They also have the right to die painlessly.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved