From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Rights or Humane treatment? (was Re: HELP!!! Vegan cat food recipes needed)
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 07:55:36 GMT

 
>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. 
 
And what is this, the voice of reason and objectivity speaking?
All I see here are mere ex cathedra assertions and vilifications.
No documented facts, no arguments, just the perfervid voice of an all
knowing Inquisitor pronouncing from on high who are the misguided,
the terrorists, and what is anti-science.  And I was so naive to think
that science was in the business of gathering both supportive and
non-supportive empirical evidence for corrigible knowledge.
 
 
 
> 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.
 
Instead of always decreeing that something is "wrong", how
about some reasons in support of such perfunctory verdicts.
Also, if you are going to presume to speak on my behalf how about
making just a little effort towards some intellectual rigor 
by at least quoting some of my words concerning those nasty things that 
supposedly advocate.
 
 
 
>>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.  
 
Nice to be quoted out of context and to be told that I 
and anyone else sympathetic to animal rights has no "brain".  
And this is supposed to be an example of what you call 
non-dogmatic thinking?  
 
Now, the fellow to whom my remark was originally addressed and 
whose comments you have very conveniently chosen to excise, 
was making factual claims about a book which were simply
incorrect by any standards of interpretation.  I am not 
talking about believing the thesis of animal rights, or not 
believing it, but only about at least UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY 
what is being said.  The same problem you are having here.  I 
don't advocate violence or coercion and to be told that I do 
is simply false.  Also, you've not bothered to read much of what 
I have posted, otherwise you would know that I don't believe in 
"absolute truth".  But what's the point in telling you this since 
you seem more intent on believing what your own prejudicial 
preconceptions would dictate.
 
 
 
> Therefore, either "they" aren't bothering to think about it
> or "they" are involved in an evil conspiracy.  
 
Shades of the inquisition again.  Devils and conspiracy everywhere!
 
 
 
>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.  
 
Well, if PETA is yellow journalism, then this is
simply blackguarding and fuliginous fulmination.
 
 
 
>>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.  
 
And you are being artless?  I have already repeatedly condemned 
the ALF tactics of doing property damage.  With respect to PETA, 
how about some documentation of your charges, or, is condemnation 
without evidence another mark of your non-dogmatic mindset?  And 
what about this glib categorizing of so many distinct individual 
groups into one black pot?   Are they all the same in your 
books and no effort at any fair and informed differentiation is 
to be attempted?  Is it too much work to do a little reading of
primary sources?
 
 
 
>>> 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.
 
I make a plea for informed discussion backed by verified 
facts and rational arguments and this is all you can offer?
Pretty feckless remark.
 
 
 
>>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.  
 
Ah, now we have it.  Who are you now presuming to speak 
for by this royal "we"?  
 
Not your "job to debate" and address my arguments?
No, it guess as one of those endowed with a "brain", as you put it, 
there is no need for rational argument and thoughtful debate. 
Tell me, what purpose and task should we have our "brains" 
undertake if it is not for rational debate?  It was Aristotle
who thought that the brain only served to cool the circulation; 
some people even today think that he might be right.