From: wender@top.cis.syr.edu (Elaine Wenderholm)
Subject: Re: pets (was Re: LEATHER)
Reply-To: wender@top.cis.syr.edu (Elaine Wenderholm)
Organization: CIS Dept., Syracuse University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 14:32:04 EDT

Newsgroups: rec.food.veg
Subject: Re: pets (was Re: LEATHER)
Summary: 
Expires: 
Reply-To: wender@top.cis.syr.edu (Elaine Wenderholm)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: CIS Dept., Syracuse University
Keywords: 

In article <1966@ra.nrl.navy.mil> rovel@donatello.nrl.navy.mil (Amy Rovelstad) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.083521.16470@rtf.bt.co.uk> traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes regarding a previous poster:
>>
>>Keeping pets at all is inconsistent with your stated objectives.
>>
>>The  problem  is  that  you may have taken the animals in for compassionate
>>reasons,  and  this  cannot  be  faulted,  however I think that pet keeping
>>should  as  a rule not be part of a Vegan lifestyle. It only encourages the
>>breeding of more animals, and they are normally fed on other animals.
>>
>>If  one  likens  meat  eating to cannibalism then one can liken pet keeping
>>to  slavery.  You may treat your slaves with love and respect, but they are
>>still slaves.
>>
>>Please  note  that  I  am  not  recommending that you get rid of your pets,
>>just   that   I  don't  think  you  should  replace  them  when  they  die.
>
>[conclusion deleted]
>>
>>Michael Traub
>>BT Customer Systems, Brighton Systems Centre. traub@rtf.bt.co.uk
>
>
>
>I am just curious.  Do you make any differentiation between pets obtained
>via pet stores/breeders/puppy mills and those rescued through the SPCA
>(for example)?  It seems to me that once the animal has been born that 
>adopting them is morally acceptable, since the other alternative is for them


yes, and what about seeing eye dogs?  I suppose that's also morally
unacceptable?  



>to be killed (as a direct consequence of human irresponsibility).  Of course, 
>this must be coupled with spaying/neutering etc, and in an ideal world where 
>the vegan/animal rights lifestyle has been universally adopted there will 
>be no more of these discarded animals and the practice will come to a stop. 
>However, until those utopian times descend upon us, there will still be a 
>need for adoption.
>
>To anyone who takes offense at the above characterizations: please note
>that most of the posters so far in this thread seem to be in substantial 
>agreement.  My question is directed to them.  I do not mean to rile 
>those who might disagree about what an `ideal' world would look like, and
>don't wish to get off on that track.
>
>Amy (startled to find that even *she* has been baited into 
>     posting on a non-food topic...)

IMHO, whenever people try to place absolutes on ANY topic, one runs into
those *pesky little gray areas* that are not so easily dealt with.

As an aside, digital computers are modelled in a world of on or off (or true
or false, or 1 or 0) but in fact, if you look at computers at the circuit 
level, there just is no absolute as 1 or 0, on or off, etc.

If you want to extend this to quantum mechanics, then you're in a realm where
even logic doesn't hold.

My point it - what's concrete on one level, easily explained on one level,
always has ramifications outside of those simplistic terms.

There ain't no such thing as a black and white world.



From: wender@top.cis.syr.edu (Elaine Wenderholm)