From: mhollowa@csws16.ic.sunysb.edu (Michael Holloway)
Subject: Re: Rights or Humane treatment? (was Re: HELP!!! Vegan cat food recipes needed)
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 03:09:06 GMT

mhollowa@csws16.ic.sunysb.edu (Michael Holloway) writes:


>>All well and good so long as this involves a solely academic discussion,
>>any semblance of which the animal rights issue has left behind.  When 
>>activists are busy forcing people to conform to philosophies that are not 
>>their own choosing - it becomes time to stop this mushy "looking for the 

>Yes, we are so very busy with our whips and chains.  Seriously, all that
>is being "forced" upon you is open dialogue and mere verbal persuasion.

Come now.  Do you really want to appear so naive.  The polictical groups 
whose standards you carry are VERY actively involved in trying to change 
common outlooks, introduce harmful legistlation, terrorize people and 
subverting public education to the teaching of their own anti-science 
doctrine.  What you're advocating is so mistaken that it has scared enough 
people into resisting your cause.  This isn't easy since it has to be done 
in such a way that the concern for animal WELFARE isn't damaged.

>You don't have to listen, and it is quite evident that you have freely
>chosen not to.  

I'm pleased that that popped out so early.  That statement is precisely the 
reason that movements such as the animal rights movement and the 
anti-abortion movement have to be resisted and spoken against.  There are 
two assumptions that make it dangerous.  The first is that the "converted" 
are the holders of absolute truth.  It's difficult to accept the notion that 
a belief that is very important to you (be it God, the philosophy of animal 
"rights", the personhood of a two celled zygote, or a flat earth) can not be 
seen as true by anyone with a brain.  Therefore, either "they" aren't 
bothering to think about it or "they" are involved in an evil conspiracy.  
If a group of people get together and pass this kind of rationalization 
around long enough, it can be used as justification for everything from the 
kind of yellow journalism practiced by groups like PETA to the terrorism of 
ALF.  Plenty of people though have been able to get past the "struggle 
against the infidel" type of mindset and actually get comfortable with the 
idea that other well intentioned people might not see things the same way 
and that it is wrong to grap them by the throat, shake them, and insist that 
they listen to you.  Of course, when you believe that these people are 
killing babies or something, this might be a difficult transition.  

>Now, if you are referring to the ALF who condone the damaging of
>property in labs to make their point, no one here that I am aware
>of is a memeber or supports such actions. 

It's disingenuous to say that you don't support a terrorist group when you 
don't condemn their actions and instead act in such a way as to offer them 
encouragement.  If you contribute to PETA or their ilk, or proselytize with 
their propaganda, then you do, in fact, support ALF.  

>An you've read them all, have you?  About how some choice citations to
>back up your claims, or is this too academic a task for you?

>>using the term you align yourself with the people who, through this highly 
>>warped and illogical philosophy, equate animal life and human life ... on ALL 
>>levels.  The majority of people who claim they believe in animal rights never 
>>read the books and don't have the foggiest idea what they're supporting. 

>Is that right?  Have you got some published empirical studies documenting
>this empirical claim?  If so, then please cite them so that we can
>all be so well informed as yourself.  Please, do not bother to merely
>proffer anecdotal stories; I have plenty of my own which suggest a quite
>differ picture than what you wish to portray.

Anocdotal story #1: Micky D's is still doing booming business.

>>	Before there was "animal rights" there was "humane treatment".  I 
>>strongly support the humane treatment of animals, as does any sane human 
>>being.  Humane treatment stems from our own humanity, it doesn't require 
>>convoluted reasoning that assigns animals "rights".i

>And what prompts this outpouring of our own "humanity"?  Is it not 
>by virtue of the other, whether human or non-human, being something
>special that exacts our concern and sympathy?  That we care about
>others hinges on the "other" being of some value and worth in their 
>own right.  

No.  I'm unconvinced.  I'm sure you can list the alternatives for 
explainations of why we treat animals humanely as well as I.  Lining them 
up and shooting them down will leave me, and the majority of the 
public, equally unconvinced.  You see, we don't see it as our job to debate 
you and address your arguments.  As a self-proclaimed "activist" 
you've taken it upon yourself to convince other people that you carry "THE 
TRUTH".  That doesn't mean that we have to believe you.
If you like, you can read the short articles I'm going post, one of which 
reviews Singer's Animal Liberation.  That and some of the others so a far 
better job of outlining alternative reasoning than what I might write.

>>  When you identify 
>>with the animal rights movement, whether or not you agree with their 
>>philosophy, you have advanced THEIR cause.  THEIR cause is unyielding - 
>>no middle ground there, sorry.  
>>	The animal rights movement has become dangerous.  It's time to 
>>stop offering them support when none is intended.

>... and I do read
>books; in fact I'm surrounded by about 3,000 books in my small
>cabin.
                                      
Yasssss...the point being....?