From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Animal Research
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 03:22:03 GMT

andrewt@scrooge.cs.wisc.edu (Andrew Thomas-cramer) writes:

>     I've just read this board for the first time today.

	We know.  Much of what you discuss below has already been beaten
to death here over the course of the past few months.  However, you make
a few points that should be hammered out a bit more:

>      Another option would be to create two separate boards, one for
>      hunters and vivisectionists to glory in their abuse of power against
>      those with no voice, and another for we animal rights' folks to
>      map out strategy.

	I'd suggest alt.tasteless for the former, and a mailing list for
the latter.  What's the use of strategy when you give it to your enemy?

>      Morality: I'd tend to avoid this term, since it can imply to some
>      code of behavior based on a culture or religion. Everyone's sure
>      that their's is the best and can't be improved on, but that's false.

	Or it's true.  It has to be true for one, by your own definition.

>      Rights: We need to distinguish between legal rights and ethical
>      rights. Animal rights folks sometimes try to effect increased
>      legal rights for animals as a means to insure their ethical rights.
>      When we say "Animals have rights," we mean ethical rights.

	Ethical rights are fine, since ethics vary with individuals and
only a society-wide ethic can be legally enforced.  When a minority legally
imposes ethics on a majority, it's called tyrrany.  Stay out of my bedroom,
out of my house, and off of my land, and I don't care if you are the DNR,
the BATF, or the FBI, unless you have a warrant I tend to approach
tresspassers with an attitude of self-rightous indignation at the invasion
of my privacy and the sanctity of my property.  The same goes for my
personal liberties and freedoms as spelled out in the laws of the US.  If
you choose to do something, that's fine.  If you choose to keep me from
doing something because of your morality, things get ugly.

	I think you'll find this same attitude from most hunters, as well
as most Americans in general.  Hence, we find you annoying.

>    Some of the things I've found most humorous:

	Keep thinking they're humorous -- you're not looking deeply enough.

>     * The assertion that those with the ability to make moral distinctions
>	have carte blanche to those who do not. I assume this means I
>	can torture and kill babies.

	Go ahead and try it.  Perhaps you'll get away with it, perhaps you
will find yourself quite dead from a mother who get annoyed at you.  If
bears can do it and be only acting on instinct, I can too.  You'll note
that I cannot kill a burgular unless I, and a reasonable jury, think I am
in fear of my life.  I don't think bears have the same restrictions.  If
bears must be equal to me in rights, I demand equal responsibilities of
them.  I therefore fully expect any animal who steals food from my garden
to be incarcerated, fined, or otherwise prosecuted.

	See how silly the point you try to make is when taken to the
logical conclusion?  The assertation you note above is made because only
those who understand responsibility can be presumed to act as guardians
and caretakers of those who don't.  Hence, you had limited rights until
you were 21, and hence deer have limited rights forever because they
can never be presumed to reach an age where they will be responsible for
their actions.  If you disagree, sign up a deer to vote.

>     * The assertion that others do not have the right to "make our 
>	lifestyle choices for us." If your "lifestyle choices" involve
>	causing harm to others, then you can be interfered with. That's
>        one purpose of laws. And by your own reasoning, if you have the
>	right to interfere in others' lives by causing them harm, surely
>	others have the right to interfere in your life. You have the 
>	right to extend your fist, as Jefferson said, but your right ends
>	at your neighbor's nose.

	We don't have any right to "make lifestyle choices for others",
be it banning homosexuality or the eating of meat.  A burgular has the
right to interfere with my life, just as I have a right to interfere with
his when he does so.  My right to swing ends at my neighbors nose, but
likewise I have a right to beat my neighbor to a bloody pulp when he
purposefully strikes my nose.  If I cannot do so, that's tough -- the
law does not guarantee I will be victorious, only that I can try.  You
can try all you want to regulate my behavior, and I shall fight you every
step of the way.

>     * The assertion that animal rights activists are demanding that
>	"all animals are entitled to all rights held by humans." That's
>	false. Animal rights activists don't want to give cows the right
>	to vote. We want to give them the right to have respected their 
>	basic need to be free from pain and to live their lives. 

	Where do we draw the line, and how can that be enforced?  If you
are really only concerned with making animals free to live their lives,
buy a couple of states and then animals to populate them with.  If you
and your side do not do so, I am left to conclude that you wish only to
extend rights to one group that infringe on the rights of others (or
perhaps privlidges would be a better term for both), and do not have the
social clout to do so by concensus.  Thus, your only hope is legislative.
There is no need for the majority to bow to the will if the minority on
moral differences, and especially not through legislative action.

>     * The suggestion that animal torture is legitimized because it is
>	medically useful. The same argument could be used to legitimize
>	the human experiments of the Nazis, Japanese and the United States.

	And you'll kindly note societal pressures made these practices
extinct, not legislation.

>     * The implication that animal rights activists are politically right
>	wing. What, do you think if you insult us we'll go away?

	"Look, Marge, it's a liberal!"
	"Are you sure, Henry?  I thought they became extinct in the 70's?"
	"Nope, I'm sure.  Look, he's hugging a bunny *and* wearing tie-dye."

>	Progressives have been fighting for the respect of the needs
>	of various disenfranchised groups for centuries.

	Respect requires a cause, or reason for it.  Handouts are not
worthy of respect.  Effort and ambition are.

> 	We've been
>	successful with people of color, workers and women (editorial in 1848
>	after suffragists' Seneca Falls Conference: "They'll be wanting
>	to give the vote to cows next"). 

	It seems you still do.  And just how have you been successful?  Do
changes in the law changing "men" to "males and female" somehow equate to
more respect?  Does a law banning bigotry somehow remove the bigots?  No,
it's a feel-good law that does not address the root of the matter.  If you
can change that root, fine.  If you cannot, your laws are worthless and
quite likely unjust.

>	We're still working, obviously. 
>	We're working on ending homophobia. 

	An interesting word, that, as it implies an irrational fear
against homosexuals.  First, the literal meaning is fear of the same,
which is ludicrous; second, there is no such disease; and third, the
dislike of homosexuality is not a fear.  I dislike brussel sprouts.
I do not fear them.  Another buzzword that makes up for a lack of
tolerance and understanding of opposing viewpoints.

	"Zey disleik homosexuals, comerade."
	"Da, and ze must ve re-educated."
	"I shall alert za stalag at once.  Shall ve teach them
liberalism too?"
	"Nyet.  Too much uff a goot tink may harm dem."

>	And we're working against 
>	animal abuse. And at some point we'll be successful. The question
>	is, when that time comes, which side do you want to say you were on?

	The side of freedom to make my own moral choices, and to live by
them, and to do so in the security and sanctity of a society that
tolerates my views so long as they are not imposed upon everybody else.

	Read it again.  Once more.  It doesn't mean society at large
has to agree that I can murder.  It means I can murder all I want, but
in doing so the roles are reversed and society need not tolerate my
behavior since I'm the distinct minority and imposing my view.  Extend
this to animals, and they're free to fight back against humans.  If
we extend your cry of, "But they can't win against your rifles!" I'll
point out they can't win against a car either, and that nothing in the
law or in nature has ever guarenteed winning a fight, only in being
free to engage in it.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
<viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
<ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>