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: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:21:47 GMT

Robert Black writes:

>The evidence continues to mount that there are really two John Van Ettens.
>The first one - let's call him the Good John - has recognized that animals
>have some rights and actually signs petitions against unnecessary cruelty
>inflicted on geese to fatten up their livers.  The Bad John comes up with
>drivel like that below and in other postings which I read but lacked the 
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>time to answer before their disappearance from this site.

Bob, I've been thinking (imagine that) about this and I feel I owe it
to you to address this issue, since you brought it up.  I assume one
of the predominant posts that sticks in your mind here is one which
was entitled "They're coming for Ronald," in which I posted a
ficticious future quote from our friendly clown.  I got very little
feedback on it (considering its controvertial and inflammatory
nature) and was surprised at that, although I have my suspiscions as
to why you AR folk let it so quietly slip by.
     These posts I've made (while in Bad John mode, or whatever) have
been intended as a sort of reality check for the lurkers of this
group, and the people in general.  I merely felt the need remind
everyone of the true goals of the AR movement.  My remarks were not
intended against any people in specific, merely against the ideology
(which I feel is flawed).  As such I'm curious as to why you took such
strong objection to them (again, I have a few ideas which I will
address below).
     Therefore, I must ask openly whether or not I am wrong in my view
of the big picture, which I was reminding the audience of.  Please
feel free to refute my assumptions as enumerated below, if you would,
about the goals of the animal rights movement.

     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)).

     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).

     3. The animal rights movement feels that *no* person should be
allowed to do otherwise even if the person feels differently.

     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).

     Now, this is the impression that I've gotten from dealing with
you people and from reading posts in this forum, and I think it's
fairly accurate.  So why have you taken excepion with my recent posts?
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.  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?
     The only thing that I can think of which offended you in my
"They're coming for Ronald" post was my use of the Rev. Neimollier's
(sp?) oratory style to express my feeling to the 240+ million meat
eaters in America that we must all stand together.  Was that it?  Did
you think that I was somehow comparing the animal rights movement to
Nazis?  Perish the thought, Bob.  We all know you AR folk are *not*
Nazis.  Unlike ARs, the Nazis were a small group of people that forced
their views on others, used divide-and-conquer techniques to gain
power (hence Neimollier's quote), and were misguided enough to truly
believe that the starvation, suffering, and death that they inflicted
was all for a good cause.


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"--