From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Animal Bill of Rights
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:01:54 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <AWERLING.92Apr3105958@dante.nmsu.edu>, awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
> In article <1992Apr2.105936.4732@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
> 
> John Robinson:
>jr>>He strikes me as a busybody who would use legislation to dictate morality, 
> jr>>as do you.
>    
> Andrew Werling: 
> aw> Honestly, where do you get that impression?
> 
> robinson@ac.dal.ca (John Robinson) writes:
> jr> Do you or do you not support the idea of an animal bill of rights?
> 
> That would depend on what was included in it.  Unnecessary
> violence/cruelty is my big thing.  Making hunting and fishing illegal
> I would not support.  I am happy that bullfighting as practiced in
> some countries is not legal in the U.S.

I am not opposed to legislation designed to prevent deliberate cruelty, but 
I would probably resist it if it was couched as a 'bill of rights' for 
animals.  I've never seen a bull fight, but I gather from what I've heard 
of it that it is not terribly pleasent for the bull, so I think we're in 
agreement on that point.

> 
>jr>>I would be more inclined to trust his values if I felt he was willing to 
>jr>>recognize that they are and should properly remain his. He has no business 
>jr>>forcing them on other people and yet he seems altogether too willing to do 
>jr>>that, as his statements wrt stealing lobsters indicate. :-)
>   
> aw> My values are my own, but when a third party (like a lobster) comes
> aw> into play, sometimes people become infringed upon.  In instances like
> aw> that, the issue of rights becomes blurry, rather than black and white.
> aw> You don't have the right to kill a person, and if I were to stop you
> aw> from killing somebody, you would probably tell me I was infringing
> aw> upon your rights, and that I would be doing so in such a way as to be
> aw> imposing my morals on you.
> 
> jr>Hmmm.  In order to make this statement you have to have completely 
> jr>misunderstood everything we've been talking about recently.  If I were in 
> jr>the process of killing an animal and you tried to stop me, particularly 
>jr>during hunting or fishing season, I would most definately tell you you were 
> jr>infringing upon my rights.  If you can honestly belive that I would extend 
>jr>this carte blanche to human beings then it is clear you haven't been paying 
> jr>attention.
> 
> I was extending your statement logically.  If someone is committing
> unnecessary cruelty on any animal, human or not, I would break in and
> stop it.  I wasn't talking about hunting, or any other practice which
> claims to kill as humanely as possible.  Boiling a lobster, however,
> does not seem too humane.

I think we are perhaps closer in viewpoint on this than we previously 
thought.  If I thought my neighboor was being cruel to their dog or child I 
wouldn't go to the extreeme of breaking in...I would report them however. 
:)

In any event it would seem that I mis-interpreted your position somewhat, 
for which I appologize.  Consider my statement retracted.

> 
> aw> Legislation is not my goal wrt animal rights.  Don't put goals in my
> aw> agenda without asking!
>   
> jr>Re-read what I said above carefully.  I didn't say it was your goal.  I 
> jr>didn't say it was a goal in your personal agenda.  Nonetheless I think 
> jr>based on your statements so far that you would vote in favor of something 
> jr>like an animal bill of rights.  Am I wrong?
> 
> My statements so far with regarts to law places no value whatsoever on
> it.  Laws have nothing to do with individual morality.
> 
> aw> Would it hurt your enjoyment of the food if it were killed quickly
> aw> before you boiled it?
> 
>jr>No, but it has been my contention all along that the lobsters that *I* boil 
>jr>seem to die quickly enough already and don't require any further assistance 
> jr>in that direction.  I also stated that if I were to boil a very large 
>jr>lobster (that is btw how this got started) and I saw it trying to climb its 
> jr>way out of the pot for a couple minutes or more that I rethink that 
> jr>decision.  In such a situation it would probably be wise to kill it 
> jr>quickly just prior to boiling it.  However, the point of this discussion
> jr>is that just because one person observed one phenomena wrt one type of
> jr>lobsters (large ones) does not mean that that translates to all lobsters 
> jr>(i.e. small ones), a point you seem to have been missing, deliberately or 
> jr>otherwise.
> 
> If you're certain that the lobster the size you're boiling does not
> suffer needlessly in the process, then I think we agree on this point.
> I have not missed the point, but I do not recall you originally saying
> anything to this effect.  My recollection is irrelevent wrt whether or
> not you actually said it, because my memory sucks anyhow.  It is
> relevent as to why I "missed" the point.

Spoken like a gentleman.

I'm certain.  I thought I had pointed it out a couple of times, if not to 
you directly at least in this thread.  Perhaps I didn't make it clear 
enough.  I'm not into sadistically torturing lobsters, but then I've no 
first hand information to indicate that I've been doing so.  I boil 
relatively small lobsters, and I drop them in head first.  Seems quite 
expeditious to me.

> 
> --
> Andrew Werling   awerling@nmsu.edu
-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069