From: andrewt@scrooge.cs.wisc.edu (Andrew Thomas-cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Animals are not toys
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:47:59 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.

In article <0avz-cf@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
>Robert Black writes:
>
>>In article <vqrzjgf@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
>>>[...]  And that's to be expected.  They consider
>>>owning animals to be slavery, ...
>>
>>Aw come on, John!  I've got 14 cats and I won't even mention how many
>>dogs.  I don't view myself as a slaveowner, so why would I view other
>>pet "owners" as slaveowners.  I can't see how anyone can take this
>>seriously.  It wouldn't surprise me if well over 90% of animal advocates
>>likewise share their living quarters with multiple animals covering a
>>wide assortment of species.  And they don't consider themselves to be
>>slaveowners.
>
>Fair enough, Bob.  Only the "people in charge" have publicly stated
>such views, and I agree that probably most AR folks don't think owning
>pets is slavery.  It is, however, indicative of how blindly you
>(general) follow. ;-)  I do feel that my original point stands.  You
>folks consider hunting to be murder, and would not be tolerant of it
>*at all* if you were in the majority.  This is nothing
>earth-shattering, by any means.
>
>
>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"--


      If animal rights activists followed blindly, we would not be animal
      rights activists. We would be carnivores. We have had to make a
      conscious choice to discard part of the violence in our culture. This
      requires independence, especially for those of us who grew up in
      the country on farms.

      Animal rights activists are a diverse group; there is no group of
      "people in charge" of the movement. You, as someone not involved with
      the movement, may be more likely to hear some people than others --
      but that does not indicate that those in the movement follow without
      question. If you were involved with the movement, you would find
      large disagreements about subgoals, implementations and the like. We
      work together in various independent groups because we have an 
      overall agreement that the horrors of torture and killing of 
      6 billion animals a year in the United States alone must stop. When
      we've got that problem solved -- and we will -- then we can concern
      ourselves with less terrible issues.
       
      Finally, the disparagement of pets may be a semantic issue. "Pets" is
      considered a term of ownership by some of the movement. That is,
      "pets" are animals used by humans to satisfy humans needs, and
      discarded when no longer useful. When we're talking with people who
      share this definition, some of us *do* disparage the keeping of pets.
      But most of us *do not* disparage sharing homes with companions.

      So what is the difference between pets and companion animals? Companions
      are treated like friends; pets are treated like toys.

      B{ andy
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals