From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act, Says PPF
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 03:51:27 GMT

Robert Black writes:

>In article <5hhyf4_@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
>>Robert Black writes:

[stuff deleted]
>There were three statements you made recently which I felt were in 
>serious error.  I will address those below.

[lots of Niemoller-like quotes deleted]
>Note that these examples are not intended to embody any great esoteric
>truth, but to show that this type of presentation can be used for many
>causes and that the divide-and-conquer approach is in itself neutral and
>therefore amenable to use or misuse by any cause.  If the AR, or any
>other movement, chooses to initially target more vulnerable agents of
>exploitation, then it would not be the immense "news scoop" that you
>seem to imply.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you, in that I feel that the
general population needs to be reminded of things occasionally.  It is
no great "news scoop" of what the AR movement is doing, but the apathy
of the people at large is rampant.  Hell, they even think that it's
more cruel for me to shoot a deer and kill it before it hits the
ground, than for them to buy veal in a store, due to their isolation
and lack of critical thought.  Sometimes we just have to tell them
that they need to tie their shoes, even though they ought to know it
(if you understand what I mean).


[some stuff deleted]
>jsve writes:
>>     1. The animal rights movement wishes to stop the consumption of
>>all animal-related products (including but not limited to: hunting,
>>farming (e.g., veal and chickens), and restaurants (e.g., McDonalds)).
>
>I favor a progressive phasing out, down to a level approaching zero, of
>all use of animals for food for humans.  In the meantime, I favor an
>immediate cessation of all painful slaughtering/killing practices. 

When you say "a progressive phasing out" I assume that means by force,
if you folks had the power to do so (i.e., were in the majority).  And
also that it would occur "as quickly as possible." ;-)


>>     2. The animal rights movement wishes to stop all animal
>>experiments of any kind (e.g., those done to try and cure AIDS and
>>cancer).
>
>I favor a progessive phasing out, down to a level approaching zero, of
>painful and fatal experiments on animals. 

Another yes, despite the careful phrasing.  It would be instantaneous,
if you could (not that I'm saying you're wrong to feel that way).


>>     3. The animal rights movement feels that *no* person should be
>>allowed to do otherwise even if the person feels differently.
>
>In evaluating the goodness or badness of an action, the effects of the
>action on the recipient are more relevant than the beliefs of the
>subject, independently of whether the recipient is a human or nonhuman
>animal.
>
>Most humans do not support the use of other humans as food or as
>involuntary subjects in experiments.  Some humans feel differently.  Do
>you believe that those who feel differently should be allowed to
>kill and eat humans?  ... or use these humans involuntarily in research
>experiments?

Of course not.  I only want all the cards put on the table, lest a few
appathetic old souls decide to give in to you folk, while assuming
they can live out the rest of their lives as they want to do.  Again,
I fully expect you to feel that way, and would probably say you were
being inconsistent if you felt otherwise. :-)


>>     4. The animal rights movement places the rights of the individual
>>animal higher than the good of the whole herd (i.e., culling a herd is
>>a bad thing even if better for the herd because individuals will die).
>
>The animal rights movement, like the human rights movement and unlike
>the traditional conservation movement, sees value in individuals. 
>(Remember, this is the late 20th century; socialism and communism are
>have gone out of fashion.  :-).  This is not to say that there are never
>cases in which an individual's welfare must be sacrificed for the good
>of the larger group, but such a sacrifice is never to be taken lightly,
>especially when those being asked to make the ultimate sacrifice have
>no say in the matter.

Again, this is of course consistent, and I had perceived it correctly.


>>I'm tempted to say that it's merely because you folk don't want all
>>this stuff written out like this in plain English in one single spot
>>where the people can see the big picture.
>
>Here's what I (speaking again as an individual) see as the "big picture"
>goals of the animal rights movement:
>
>1. Oppose human cruelty to animals on all fronts.

I'm very glad to see your use of the term "human cruelty" instead of
simply "cruelty" towards animals, otherwise we would all be closer to
the same side of the fence, since even LACS sees the need to cull
herds in our present unstable environments with rifles, in order to
prevent starvation.  Admittedly, farming and experimentation would
still be issues.


>2.  Use logic and reason to effect a major cultural change in our view
>of animals.  This change would shift us away from the view that animals
>are food or mere "resources" to be "harvested" and toward the view that
>animals are in many ethically relevant ways the same as humans.

Spreading information to further your cause is a good thing, blowing
up labs is not (admittedly a cheap shot, since this is one of your
smaller factions).


>Within the AR movement, there is a fair amount of diversity in applying
>this big picture to individual classes of animal abusers.  And there are
>tactical and strategic differences over how to go about achieving these
>somewhat general goals.
>
>>  Perhaps you are afraid they
>>won't be so quick in their apathy (oh, it's only hunters and
>>experimenters that are the targets so we don't care -- hey pass me
>>another Big Mac (tm) please <munch, munch>) if they know the truth.  A
>>truth which I feel they must be reminded of.  Am I wrong to do so?
>
>It has been my ongoing observation that the AR movement does not
>fear the truth at all.  Quite the contrary.  Unfortunately, many
>critics of the AR movement do not share that same commitment to the
>truth.

Here we disagree, for all the obvious reasons we've all stated before,
and I shant belabor them.  Hunters have never feared openness, and
I've often encouraged anyone that wants to learn more about it to go
hunting with me, although AR folk like our pretty little blonde Honda
driver never take me up on the offer, or even consider it with an open
mind. :-(


[stuff about a misunderstanding on gun-control deleted]
>2.  You charged that the AR movement was afraid of taking on the farm
>industry and meat-eaters in general.  This may be your impression from
>your involvement in this forum or from DEC meetings, but that only
>betrays your somewhat limited exposure to the AR movement.  There are
>groups which specifically target farm animal issues, as I've indicated
>in my reply to J Hoskins in another thread.  Peruse through a couple
>issues of ANIMALS' AGENDA or ANIMALS' VOICE and you will see a wide
>variety of specific abuses discussed, of which hunting and wildlife
>questions comprise just a part of the whole.

But it's a disproportionately large part, considering that there are
only 17 million hunters in America and 240+ million meat eaters.
Also, as I've said before I signed a petition against one of our local
duck farmers a while back.  The local AR folk weren't there protesting
that farmer for treating the ducks cruely, but they do come out to
protest against hunters instead.  Admittedly only one data point.  I
also have never seen you folks protesting in front of Mickey D's.  And
I'm sure it's because you're wise enough to know that it will turn the
currently appathetic general population (whom you wish to "educate")
against you if they can't glom down their Big Macs in peace.


>3.  You charged that the ANIMALS AGENDA magazine was printing lies. 
>Having read every issue for the past two and a half years, I believe
>that you are incorrect in your assessment.  You may disagree with the
>wording or believe certain wording to be biased, but that is not the
>same as a deliberate lie.  We all strive for accuracy in our writing,
>but hazy statements creep in despite our best efforts, sometimes due
>simply to time constraints.  Considering how small the magazine staff
>is, it's an impressive accomplishment that the magazine contains as much
>information as it does.  But to show that the editors print lies - a
>very serious charge - you need to show deliberate deception.  It's not
>adequate to simply point out that you feel some description is
>misleading or even incorrect. 

Point taken that the editors may be brain-dead instead of liars. :-)
But the real issue I was trying to address was that the information
was flawed (by whatever means is irrelevant) and should be taken with
a grain of salt instead of swallowed hook, line, and sinker.


John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals