Talk:Animal rights/Archive 1

message: 12/15/04: More details on criticism needed to convey any sense of neutrality.  Peta's strange behavior should be discussed.  Protesting and vandalism of medical research should be looked at from a moral standpoint.
:the right not to be eaten
Are you sure ?
Animals eat animals, so what's their explanation of calling it 'animal right' ? -Taw
The right to life is maybe more precise. Anyway, the point is, at least among some animal rights defenders, 1. that human beings don't need meat to survive and 2. that human beings have, at least in some phenomenological sense, free will, which most non-human being seems to lack. This gives us moral responsibilities that other animals lack. There are also different kinds of rights; those that are claimed, and those that are given, so to speak. Infants, for instance, don't claim a right to live, but we nevertheless grant it to dem.  -LarsErikKolden
I would be surprised to hear that any animals had any explanations whatsoever! (hee hee) Perhaps your question might be better cast as, "Animals eat animals, so why do animal activists claim a right for them not to be eaten?"
The question suggests/implies that human murderers (to draw an analogy) are hypocritical to demand for themselves a right not to be executed. Perhaps the right not to be eaten should extend only to herbivores? -- Cayzle
Seems as if some "animal rights" advocates are non-vegans, participate in the food chain but dislike cruelty to animals above and beyond the minimal necessary to the food process (ie Veal).  There should be some distinction or explanation of the range of opinions.  Changed this to "considered by some". --justfred
----
"alleged rights" is confusing. What does that mean? Does "alleged rights" mean anything other than "rights thought by some"?
Is the point that animals can't talk, and thus can't assert rights for themselves?
--TheCunctator
----
Is anyone else confused by it?  Or can we convey the thought less confusingly?  "Alleged rights" is similar to "alleged victories" or "alleged crimes."  Some people allege that the things in question exist, or if there's no question of their existence that they are properly described by the epithets--and some people deny that.  So: some people say that there are animal rights; others deny this.  We should not simply, in the first sentence, say that "animal rights are such-and-such," when many people deny that there are any such things at all.  For those who happen to deny that animals have rights, that would be not unlike writing, "Anna Karenina was a Russian born in 18XX" and failing to mention in the sentence that she's fictional.
Of course, to say the above is not to affirm or deny that animals have any particular rights or none at all.  :-) --LMS
"Animal rights are rights?, or alleged rights, thought by some..."  I think this is just redundant - either alleged rights or rights thought by some. --Justfred
I was going to say that even human rights can be said to be alleged, and wanted to check what was said in that article, and then it shows up it doesn't exist(!). He. --LarsErikKolden
-----
We could probably mention specific animal rights groups, like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and some criticisms of such groups. For example, I think that some animal rights groups have argued against hunting predators like wolves or sharks, even when such predators are posing a clear danger to human lives. There's also the whole laboratory research issue, whether it's right to experiment on animals to produce more treatments and cures for humans. And the (fringe?) animal rights activists that have used violence to destroy such labs, and otherwise have literally fought for animal rights.
I personally find it interesting that this topic is already being discussed in far greater detail than Human rights, at least at the moment. But I won't complain, since I don't really want to go add stuff to Human rights either. Time is short. --Wesley
-----
(Anecdote:)
A friend of mine related this story from Washington DC: during the (Clinton) presidential inaguration, and PETA was staging major protests - throwing blood on furs, "I'd rather wear nothing than fur" (in DC in Winter?!?!), etc.  So as some elegant woman was leaving one of the inagural balls in a full-length mink, an activist assaulted her:  "Do you know how many animals they had to kill to make that coat?"  Her response: "Do you know how many animals I had to f--- to get this coat?"
: This story is apocryphal. I read exactly the same wording in a 1970s joke book (though obviously without references to a Clinton inauguration or PETA).
-----
I was surprised that this page claims a clear distinction between those who support animal rights and those who are concerned about animal welfare. I know few people, many of whom are probably the type hard-core animal rights advocates would dismiss as merely concerned with animal welfare, who recognize such a distinction, even as they send of the annual check. Did anyone else fine this attempt to draw a line unusual?
FYI - over the last few years I've seen several style books decided to use the term "animal welfare" except when discussing a specific group, such as PETA, but it's not clear if this is copy editors and managing editors trying to lead a trend, or a way of acknowledging that many, many people feel our species has a responsibility to be merciful to other living things while very few people think that somehow wild rabbits should be protected from wild coyotes. 
:I think you will find this is a fairly common distinction made among activists and philosophers, as they are quite distinct philosophical positions and therefore can lead to quite different conclusions on issues. I think in an article of this nature it is worth making this distinction. Sunflower 04:36, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Those who want to antagonize the "rights" and the "welfarist" approaches should remember the words of Noam Chomsky, who, quoting Dewey (in another context), said that
[it is correct that] mere "attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance", but it can create the basis for undermining the substance. It goes back to the Brazilian rural worker's image [of] expanding the floor of the cage.  Eventually you want to dismantle the cage, but expanding the floor of the cage is a step towards that.
----
Changed "that sentient animals, because they are capable of valuing their own life" to "that animals, accepting they are sentient and capable of valuing their own life".
Reworded the opening paragraph to eliminate POV. The sentience of animals is itself controversial. Animal rights activists probably say animals are self-aware and even fully sentient, but their opponents might not agree, so the paragraph should not imply that sentience is a fact when it is an axiom from which the activists develop their policies. Vincent 06:51, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I have edited to clarify the point above. Sunflower 03:20, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Peta etc

message: I don't think this picture is a very accurate representation of animal rights.  Did the German soldiers care about horses' "rights," or did they just not want their horses to die, just as they wouldn't want their trucks to break nowadays?  Thoughts?-LtNOWIS 02:34, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the photo doesn't add anything to the article. If nobody disagrees it should be removed. Edward 12:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: Re. the "Criticisms of Animal Rights" section: Who exactly is it that criticizes animal rights from a "Marxian or historicist perspective", and which animal-rights supporters "often" take this as a might-makes-right argument?  As far as I know, such a perspective has not been articulated to any significant extent in the debate over the moral status of animals, and therefore should probably not be included in this article.  The fact that someone could make such an argument is irrelevant, it seems to me.
Scales 08:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whose Marxian perspective? 

message: Weeks ago I suggested that the paragraph in the "Criticism of Animal Rights" section about "one marxian or historicist perspective" was not representative of any substantial, actually-existing Marxist facet of the animal-rights debate, but was essentially someone's idea of "here's how someone might critique animal rights"; also, the paragraph gave the misleading impression that most of those currently writing on the subject from a Marxist perspective are opposed to animal rights/liberation, when in fact the opposite is the case.  Since there has been no response from whoever posted the paragraph, since the Animal Rights article is now at or beyond its Wikipedia-recommended limit, and since the sensible part of the paragraph in question is mentioned earlier in the section on "Criticism of Animal Rights" ("Unless one is a moral agent, the argument goes, one cannot claim rights for oneself or be held accountable for respecting the rights of others"), I have deleted the paragraph. Scales 02:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superfluous paragraph deleted 

message: I have removed the following quote attributed to Leonardo da Vinci:
"I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men"
Da Vinci, never said this. This is, instead, from an early 20th century novel about the great artist and inventor's life, Romance of Leonardo da Vinci. This particular fake quote was the result of an accidental transposition of two quotes in Jon Wynne-Tyson's book The Extended Circle: A Commonplace Book of Animal Rights.
:I removed these quotes from the article:
:* "I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men." — Leonardo da Vinci
:* "Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." — Albert Einstein
:Please don't replace them unless you can provide a specific citation. Thanks. Rhobite 19:11, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
The following page seems credible on the subject of Einstein and vegetarianism: http://www.ivu.org/history/northam20a/einstein.html .  It indicates that he not only approved of vegetarianism, but adopted a vegetarian diet near the end of his life, citing a letter dated March 30, 1954. It also gives a possible source for another oft-quoted remark of his.  Scales 04:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is my view that the vegetarian manner of living by its purely physical effect on the human temperament would most beneficially influence the lot of mankind. 
Letter to Vegetarian Watch-Tower (27 December 1930) 
--Dforest 04:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: da Vinci Quote

message: I was curious as to why the link as the main website ( http://anesthesiaswonderland.bravehost.com/index.html ) is a Animal Rights resource and the online community ( http://p2.forumforfree.com/anesthesiaswond.html) is also related to animal rights. may I ask exactly what is the problem with the website?
:Not sure what your question means. You think it should, or shouldn't, be there? And please sign your posts. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I went to the link provided but I couldn't see anything. Do you have a link to any animal-rights material there, and is it someone's blog, do you know? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh weird, I can see it now. The link that was put on the page didn't say anything about animal rights that I could see but the images were floating around the browser window so I couldn't see clearly. It  may be a Mac issue. I'll put it back. Thanks, Kerry. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anesthesia's Wonderland 

message: I have re-added the para claiming donations go mainly to professional organizers, etc, as a direct quote from the source Idleguy provided.  
As of now, only the following points from eis original paragraphs are not present: critics  say that basic human rights and human welfare are more important than animal rights and are being ignored by animal rights activists, such critics use Africa as an example of an area lacking these basic rights and welfare, such critics ask animal rights activist to improve all human conditions to the level of animal conditions before trying to improve animal conditions.  
While Idleguy may consider these points obvious, it is a basic tenent of Wikipedia that any fact can be questioned and a source required. IMO, the final goal for Wikipedia is to have each and every claim made in the 'pedia have multiple reliable sources.  Also, these seem like claims for which sources should be available; if critics have said this, we ought to be able to quote them directly.  Thanks again to everyone for working to improve the 'pedia! JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idleguy's paragraphs 

message: It seems a bit odd that the intro contains two large paragraphs about animal rights followed by one small paragraph on animal welfare, followed by a paragraph of animal rights criticism of animal welfare. I see two large "animal rights" paragraph and one small "animal welfare" paragraph to already be skewed in the favor of animal rights, and tacking on the "animal rights" criticism of "animal welfare" seems to be over the top favoritism. I think it is already clear that animal rights advocates think that anything less than animal rights is morally unacceptable, and I don't see a reason to include it as a pot-shot against animal welfare. The PETA quote of "something is better than nothing" seems grasping. Animal rights say they are against cruelty and exploitation. The animal welfare POV says their POV is not exploitive or cruel. That should be the end of it. FuelWagon 16:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: animal welfare in intro

message: re: this complete deletion: the introduction must at least mention the other major points of view around the topic or it fails NPOV. there is a major POV that opposes "animal rights" and it goes by the name "animal welfare". First SlimVirgin deleted the paragraph I added because she said it was "too long". Then she deleted it saying "don't just list quotes". So I did a complete rewrite, and now you delete it because it is "redundant"? Nice. The intro contains a short sample of the animal welfare POV. It is not redundant with the main text because the main text contains the full background of that POV. Quotes are given more context, etc. Any major point made in the intro should be covered again in the body of the article, or it wasn't worth introducing. It isn't "redundant", it's good editing: introduce the topic in the intro, then go into full detail in the body of the article. FuelWagon 16:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: felonious monk

message: FuelWagon (talk • contribs) Wrote:I've tried to summarize what I see as biased, disputed, and emotionally loaded language in the introduction
There followed a lengthy discussion that (in large) addressed issues other than article content.  The full text of this can now be found at:Talk:Animal rights/Article RfC.brenneman(t)(c) 00:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article RfC

message: The sentence "Some countries have taken the first step toward awarding personhood to non-human animals" is logically unsound. Persons are by definition human. Perhaps a better term could be found. The whole sentence, incidentally, is gazing in a crystal globe. Who says there will be "person"hood for animals, and who says this was the aim of the legislation discussed? JFW | T@lk 01:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "personhood" is being used in the philosophical or legal sense here, Jfd. But your second point — that the aim of the legislation may not be the "first step toward awarding personhood" — is a good one, so that should be reworded. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, that is one of the suggestions of the movement — that some form of legal "personhood" be extended to all living things, to all subjects of a life. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: complete ignoramus passing through here - would "autonomy" work at all? Possibly "Sovereign individuality" a la  Nietzsche? "individual legitimacy"? "autonomous individuality"? "manumission" is very possibly closest to desired meaning. KillerChihuahua 04:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personhood 

message: This talk page is really long.  Any objections to me summarising it a bit? - brenneman(t)(c) 03:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objections, Aaron. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refactoring 

message: If we are to have one or two criticism paragraphs (perhaps instead of the current second one to reduce length), here's a suggestion below. Or we could have the current second para, and the first one below as a third. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think both of those paragraphs are outstanding and should be included in the article regardless of whether or not we put them in the lead. In regard to the first half of the second paragraph, my feeling is that the distinction between Singer's utility-based approach and a rights-based approach is a bit subtle for the lead and would be better explored in the body. Also, people who want to see criticism of animal rights in the lead will probably not recognize utilitarian critiques of animal rights as really a criticism at all, but rather a bit of philosophical pilpul between groups who agree on basically the same political program. On the other hand, the second half of the second paragraph gets at the nut of what I assume FuelWagon et al want to see, the contention that under some circumstances some animal rights supporters would chose an animal life over a human life. My own feeling is that the first paragraph above would make a good third paragraph for the lead and that the second paragraph above should go in the body. The first paragraph above addresses the basic substantive issues well: for the given reasons opponents of the concept are unwilling to extend rights to animals. Criticism of the Singer position on the chimpanzee vs. vegetative human scenario, or allegations that particular activists or value the lives of animals more than those of humans, should be handled in the "criticisms" section. Babajobu 14:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Baba. I'd be fine with your suggestion: the current intro plus the first paragraph above, and the rest to the criticism section. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Good work. We need to represent the topic without judging it, and represent the criticisms without judging them either. This text seems to qualify. -Willmcw 21:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion for further paras in the intro

message: We seem to have a lot of 'em.  On another page (like Loudspeaker) I'd just clean up and get permission later.  However, I'll go gently here.  Any reason we need this many?  Refering of course to Wikipedia:External links. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I was editing and someone was reverting my changes so I'll post them here in case my addition to the intro gets reverted. Here is what I want to add:
"The animal rights movement mostly consists of morally bankrupt violent extremists intent on spreading propaganda throughout the liberal media, while those opposed to their views are generally nihilist sociopaths, more generally, evangelical Christians waiting for the apocalypse."
Judging from the tone of the article, this seems to be correct. What do you guys think: put it in or leave it out? --Ben 00:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Animal rights movement

message: What happened to the Animal Rights and the Media secion that spoke about the Animal Voices radio show? I was going to add links to other AR radio shows.....
:I deleted it because it seemed to be a plug for a radio show. If you have other information about animal rights in the media, by all means restore and expand it. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing section..?  

message: That "detailed" bothers me some, since the chunky two paragraph quote it produces as evidence has little detail to offer against the very specific charge concerning NAZI anti-vivisection legislation. The legislation was enacted almost ten years before the Holocaust really got underway. Critics do not make the comparison Francione avers. Instead, in my understanding, they are pointing out that in order to promote animals in status, it is necessary to demote humans from the existing, pre-eminent status we have afforded ourselves in our laws. That is, one must have a conception of humans which verges on losing the capacity to differentiate between humans and beasts. The bestial treatment of humans that ensued in the NAZI case adds oomf to the argument, but is not its fundament. The NAZI anti-vivisection philosophy is taken to be an early-warning sign of a general philosophical readiness to demote human beings. I just don't see how the Francione bluster here amounts to a riposte, let alone a detailed one. Adhib 23:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken. I changed the formulation to "Gary Francione has produced a response to one such argument." IMO, Francione's response is pretty ineffectual, since it basically boils down to "Why pick on the Nazis? There were other brutal, dehumanized (one might say, bestial) societies that also made a fetish of animal rights." --HK 20:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Francione riposte 'detailed'? 

message: I removed the part about how critics say that animals "do not have the capacity to enter into a social contract." First of all, I am not certain that it is true. Pets or domesticated animals that are not confined might be said to be willing participants in some sort of arrangement. More importantly, the concept of a social contract comes from John Locke, whose conception of human relations ought generally to be considered bestial. And finally, no source was offered for the inclusion of that item under "critics say," so I removed it until someone wants to document it. --HK 16:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi! I too believe it is untrue that animals cannot enter into social contract. However, this argument has been used by some critics of animal rights, e.g. Tibor Machan. Tom Regan has argued against contractarianism in many of his articles, for example, read The case for animal rights. Contractarianism is an important issue in the Animal rights debate. deeptrivia (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for finding that source, DT. I've put social contract back in with the source as an embedded link. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi DT, I see you deleted the link and created a footnote instead. This article has been using embedded links and Harvard referencing for sources, not footnotes. See WP:CITE about not changing from one style to the next. Also, someone keeps wikifying years. See the MoS. Only full dates are wikified. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, I got what you are saying. I was planning to change all references to footnote style very soon. But I guess it's fine the way it is too. I had wikified some years, sorry about that. I didn't know the policy. Thanks. deeptrivia (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Social contract"

message: Arthur Schopenhauer's critique of Kant's exclusion of animals from his moral system is based on Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, where he argues that "humans have an inherent dignity that makes them ends in themselves, whereas animals are mere means to our ends." He argues that we do have a responsibility towards animals, but an indirect one. I looked on all relevant articles on wikipedia, and none of them explains this aspect of Kant's philosophy. Maybe it will be appropriate to explain it here since it is directly related to the animal rights debate. Also, ever since Darwin published The Origin of Species, this "inherent dignity" theory is widely debated, in our times for example, by Peter Singer. 
This is a good reference worth a read. deeptrivia (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schopenhauer's critique of Kantian ethics 

message: Typically, a discussion on animal rights also includes Descartes' automata theory ("animals are automata that act as if they are conscious"), Aquinas ("since animals cannot direct their actions, they are merely instruments that exist for the sake of humans"), and Carruthers who extends Rawls' concept of Justice as Fairness to argue against animal rights. Right now I pulled these out of my head, but can find out references. I think these inclusions will make the discussion more complete. deeptrivia (talk) 04:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further  suggestions 

message: This was removed:
* "Among all civilized nations, Germany is thus the first to put an end to the cultural shame of vivisection! The New Germany not only frees man from the curse of materialism, sadism, and cultural Bolshevism, but gives the cruelly persecuted, tortured, and until now, wholly defenseless animals their rights. Animal friends and anti-vivisectionists of all states will joyfully welcome this action of the National Socialist government of the New Germany! What Reichschancellor Adolph Hitler and Minister-president Goering have done and will do for the protection of animals should set the course for the leaders of all civilized nations! It is a deed which will bring the New Germany innumerable new elated friends in all nations. Millions of friends of animals and anti-vivisectionists of all civilized nations thank these two leaders from their hearts for this exemplary civil deed!" R.O. Schmidt, "Vivisection Forbidden In Prussia", Die Weisse Fahne {The White Flag} 14 (1933) : 710-711. 
1) It is too long for the quotes section, where we normally go for bite-sized, and this article's quotes section is long to begin with. It also doesn't make a point about animal rights; its point is that the end of vivisection will bring glory to the New Germany. We are not concerned about the glory of the New Germany here. The quote would make more sense on a page about the Nazi party.
2) It is POV pushing. Discussing comparisons of the animal rights movement with Nazism is completely appropriate in the article body, where these comparisons can be faithfully considered. But the quotes section should contain quotes that directly address the issue of whether animal rights are a good or a bad idea. The quote itself doesn't make a succinct or poetic point about animal rights--it is the fact that it is obvious Nazi propaganda that makes a point. That context means that the quote cannot be taken seriously. It is POV pushing via a kind of straw man argument. If you disagree, please see (1) and please do not revert before you reply here. --The Famous Movie Director 08:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your argument has merit. However, I now think that the "Analogies to the Nazis" section ought to be fleshed out a bit. When I wrote that section, I weighted it toward the rebuttal by Gary Francione, because the quote that you removed was already in the article. Now, that section needs more documentation from the critics. --HK 15:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  abolition of vivisection is not the same as ARXanax 00:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "It is to elevate amoral animals to a moral level higher than ourselves, a flagrant contradiction. Of course, it is proper not to cause animals gratuitous suffering. But this is not the same as inventing a bill of rights for them, at our expense."
-Ayn Rand.
I think this quote and perhaps an economists view on animal rights would be a much better idea than the 'nazi' argument. After all arn't the majority of industries affected by Animal Rights Terrorism capatalist industries: drug industry, animal products, cosmetic industrys? I mean SHAC think they are waging a guerilla war within the stock market. Most animals are considered capital arn't they? The majority of animals I come into contact with are packaged, apart from when I see cows in the field... thats not NPV tho.. heres another quote to go with it..
 "a tiny group of activists (SHAC) succeeding where Karl Marx, the Baader-Meinhof gang and the Red Brigades failed" -The Financial Times.
I just think the whole nazi discussion is just plain BAD TASTE from either side!Xanax 10:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed this again.  Someone is trying to re-insert it without disscussion here.  Watch out for this happening in future.  If it's you, please discuss it here first.   I think it's irrelevant, POV and it also breaks Godwin's Law.--CalPaterson 22:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If you will consult the history tab on this discussion page, you will find that the past four or five entries were specifically on the topic of that text which you deleted. I disagree with your observations: it is relevant to a notable criticism of the animal rights movement; it is not the POV of an editor, but rather a documented quote from a notable source; and Godwin's Law, according to the article to which you have linked, applies to USENET discussions. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Of course, the implication is that "Nazi" is being used as some sort of epithet, which is also incorrect. This has all been thoroughly discussed, so please review recent discussion. I am restoring the deleted quote. --HK 07:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's discussed more below, but you don't seem to have support, so I've deleted the material again. It's not a notable criticism of the animal-rights movement that the Nazis banned vivisection on animals. It has nothing to do with the animal-rights movement, just as Hitler's allegedly being a vegetarian has nothing to do with vegetarianism, and the Gestapo wearing black coats has nothing to do with black coats. As you say, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, so let's write as though it's one. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You didn't remove it from the "criticism" section, you removed it from the "quotes" section, with the edit caption, "OR and well poisoning." I defy you to demonstrate that a quote from the NSDAP is different than a quote from Peter Singer or Jeremy Bentham, in terms of Wikipedia policy. The idea that it is OR is flat out ridiculous -- it's a quote, for god's sake -- and "well poisoning" simply means you don't like it. You are a champion on behalf of "well poisoning" in articles where your POV runs the other direction. --HK 22:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed quote 

message: 1.) do you present "both sides" of racism? Is there a section on "critics of, eg, black equality?" Should there be? If no, why do the same here?
2.) Delete the passage on Nazis. Anything we can agree is good was used by someone we can agree was horrible. Remember, Mussolini made the trains run on time. Should all trains be late because a bad person made them on time?
3.) The final criticism from Stephen Hawking should be deleted, unless he has the ultimate authority to define what a "more worthwhile cause" is. If person A believes that stopping ending a form of oppression is worthy enough to persue, who is person B to say that his favorite cause is more worthwhile?
4.) The original criticisms list could use some improvement, since it's left off in the middle, as it seems. It ends with "since non-human animals aren't capable of moral decision making." You should add the following points: (1) Yes, some apes are capable of some form of morality. (2) Moral judgement doesn't lead to rights. Brain-damaged humans (and babies) are entitled to rights, despite this lack of moral thought. The claim that the moral judgement "test" should not be administered by the individual is mentioned, but glazed over. It seems strange that your rights should depend on a test given to me. Furthermore, if mentally disabled humans don't take the test, but are included because others have passed, why not non-human animals with similar mental status? If they aren't included, why? "They're not human" is morally meaningless. (3) The article states that non-humans kill each other without thinking that it is wrong. This justifies letting humans do it? The argument seems to say: "Non-human animals are incapable of moral thought. Because of this, they act immorally towards each other. Therefore, we should be able to act immorally to them." It seems strange to say someone is immoral, and then look to them for moral inspiration.
5.) The "criticism" that non-human animal rights can be anti-human never criticizes the concept. It only attacks several of the concept's promoters. Whether Chris DeRose thinks it's justified to experiment on one rat to save an incurable disease (a purely hypothetical and impossible situation nonetheless) is irrelevent to whether non-humans should be entitled to legal rights. It certainly wouldn't make humans second-class citizens to do so; when everyone is equal, there are no second-class citizens.
6.) The section on animal welfare needs to be redone. "Animal Welfare" asks that we must provide for non-human animals "all aspects of animal well-being, including proper housing, management, nutrition, disease prevention and treatment, responsible care, human handling, and, when necessary, humane euthanasia." Some terms are vague, such as "proper" housing and "responsible" care, but the position can be classified in two general ways.
*The terms above can be defined to allow what we do today, i.e., eating flesh, experimenting, and such. These are "humane," and can be done. This position is identical to an almost complete disregard for non-human animals. Perhaps killing a pet cat is wrong, but killing a chicken is fine. How is that different from the standard anti-rights position? Being in favor of this kind of "animal welfare" while opposing rights serves only to make one more respectable whilst continuing the practices one does not wish to give up.
*The terms can be defined to exclude what we do today, i.e., we have a moral responsibility not to eat flesh or perform painful experiments on non-human animals. Of course, a "universal moral responsibility" not to injure non-human animals would be enforced by law. Once a law, it becomes a right. This position is identical to non-human rights.
I can do most of the writing, but these problems must be addressed.
:67.101.25.61, you should take the time to carefully read Wikipedia's policy on article neutrality. You appear to disagree with many of the criticisms mentioned in the article, but they are widely held beliefs and must be included, so that the reader may be aware of the controversies which surround the animal rights movement. I am also of the opinion that your understanding of some of these criticisms is faulty; for example, those who compare the animal rights movement to the Nazis are not doing so because the two movements, by sheer coincidence, held similar views on vivisection -- they are making the comparison because there is a deeper similarity, a philosophical outlook that blurs the distinction between human and beast, and in the view of these critics, that distinction is of absolutely vital importance to defending the modest advances that human civilization has made in the course of the last 500-600 years. --HK 21:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, please carefully read WP:NPOV. This article does not and should not draw any conclusion as to whether Mr. Herscovici is right, wrong, misguided, or a fuzzy thinker. It only reports on the fact that he makes this criticism, and he is not the only one making it. With respect to the Nazis, please take note of the fact that one half of that section is taken up by Gary Francione's rebuttal to the argument. If you know of someone who is notable and makes a more effective rebuttal than Francione, please suggest it on this page. --HK 15:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding how charities spend donations, the newspaper Animal People (http://www.animalpeoplenews.org) produces an annual report that summarizes the assets, budget, overhead, and program costs of more than a hundred animal protection organizations and a handful of "opposition organizations", so readers can see what organizations are using donations most effectively.  The newspaper also lists the salaries of the top staff in these organizations.  The latest report (Dec 2005) can be found at http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/05/12/watchWhogetsthemoney12.05.htm  (pdw) 08:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Herscovici isn't a well put criticism, and it should be placed somewhere other than AR because its not AR. Niether is the Nazi one and same should be done. I'll add find better criticisms on my list of things to do, because this is shoddy and not wiki standard.
The anti-human section needs the Gary Francione position as the utalitarian positions is not genrally used by ARA. Also Fruitarian belifs are not an adoption of parody AR groups, but have exsted seperatly for some time before the otherXanax 01:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General Criticism

message: these are two distinctly diffrent philosphies and movements and I believe that this article could be broken down to these diffrent topics and more information added. Xanax 00:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Animal Lib vs. Animal Rghts

message: I am at some point soon going to attempt to write a little history on AL/AR for this page, any suggestions for inclusions or snippets can be posted as drafts hereXanax 00:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History of AR

message: I wonder, there is no mention of United Animal Nations, and no Wikipedia article, yet they were coming into New Orleans when all others were evacuating. Does anyone have more information? Chris 20:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: United Animal Nations

message: This part is completely ridiculous. There's no need for it whatsoever. Just because the Nazis did something, and animal rights activists do it to, it doesn't make animal rights activists Nazis or make their actions in the least bit similar. This is a clear and obvious logical fallacy.
Are we to add to the page of vegetarianism that Hitler was a vegetarian as a 'criticism'? Are we to add to the page on dogs that because Hitler had one that's a valid criticism of them as a species?
An utterly idiotic and specious paragraph. Remove it in a week or I'll do it.
:I completely agree with the sentiment. There have been very very many leaders who committed extreme acts of genocide and destruction who had or have no regard for the welfare of animals. Those who implemented the holocaust were overwhelmingly meat eaters.
If anyone wants to replace the section, they should have a convincing reason to do so. At the moment it stands as a fallacy. Mostlyharmless 06:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While it is true that Hitler's doctors put him on a vegetarian diet to cure him of flatulence and a chronic stomach disorder, his biographers such as Albert Speer, Robert Payne, John Toland, and others, have attested to his liking for ham sausages and other --Joewithajay 00:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm putting it back (and moving this discussion to the end of the page, so that we don't disrupt the continuity.) Allow me to point out two things: first of all, it's not guilt by association; whether Hitler was a vegetarian is irrelevant. The quoted section makes clear that there is a very specific philosophical commonality between the animal rights movement and the Nazis. Secondly, whether you agree with the criticism is not important under Wikipedia policy. The question is whether the source is notable and verifiable, and it is both. Removal of information for other reasons is considered vandalism. --HK 07:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted. It's a silly section and original research. What you can do is take the material about Hitler and have a section about "Animal rights in the Third Reich." But without reputable sources saying today's animal rights activists are like Nazis (or whatever the bizarre claim is), the section as it stands violates WP:NOR. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not orginal research. It reports on what is in fact a rather wide-spread argument, sufficiently common that Gary Francione, who is listed in the article as a prominent animal rights theoretician, has responded to it in more than one location. I think that the cited commentary by Martin Hulsey is useful because of its meticulous historical documentation. However, in case it is your contention that he is not notable as a critic of animal rights, I have added a quote from Kathleen Marquardt, one of the principle bogeymen of the animal rights movement, where she makes the same argument. --HK 15:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I've made the original source -- Martin Hulsey -- specific, and added another, Kathleen Marquandt. You may debate their value as sources, but it is clearly not original research, regardless of how it "feels." And if you are not fully satisfied with these sources, I am willing to add more; there is no shortage of critics who espouse this point of view. You can't wish it away, so please don't try to sanitize the article. --HK 23:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't respond on the talk page to the other removal, because it was done by an anonymous editor who left no comment. I don't have a major problem with what you have done, but I think the Hulsey quote should be included, because it provides the documentation as to what the Nazis actually did. At one time, this was included in another section of the article, then got moved to the "Analogies" section; I think it should be preserved. I have added it to the "anti-human" section, and I hope that this is an acceptable compromise. --HK 21:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't an article about the Nazis, so to include it constitutes original research i.e. using a synthesis of published material in order to advance a position. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The title of Hulsey's article, "The Implications of Nazi Animal Protection," speaks for itself. The accusation of original research is spurious and serves a POV agenda. --HK 16:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The title doesn't speak for itself. It would need to be two things to avoid violating NOR or V: first, it would have to be an article that was specifically about the relationship between animal rights and being "anti-human," as the header says i.e. it would have to be the author's argument, not your; and secondly, the author would have to be some sort of specialist e.g. an historian, philosopher, or specialist in animal rights, (or failing that a writer/journalist published by a reputable newspaper). Also, we should say what his argument is, rather than quoting a statement from Goering. So who is Martin Hulsey and where was this article published? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the article itself says "The "antivivisection" law that was actually passed was modeled after an existing British law that did not constitute an absolute ban, despite official proclamations to that effect."  www.hitler.org/links/NAP_5.html So are you also going to argue that the British are like Nazis, because they had a similar law? I can't see where you're going with this, plus the article isn't well written and seems to be about Usenet. I doubt this would have published anywhere credible. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine -- I've restored the quote to where I originally found it, in the "quotes" section. --HK 15:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought you liked comparing people to Nazis, and accusing them of anti-Semitism. Shoe on the other foot much? --207.118.71.134 23:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  The Nazi link (which I personally find silly, but my views don't matter) is not a mainstream philosophical argument against animal rights. I know it has become popular as a kind of taunt among lay people who immediately point to Hitler's vegetarianism, etc., but in the more formal context of an encyclopedia article like this one is supposed to be, inclusion of such argument is perhaps not appropriate. Certainly not along with other philosophical arguments given by academics. deeptrivia (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparisons to Nazis

message: I just created this page and it needs expansion. See the talk page for suggestions. The Ungovernable Force 08:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Anarchism and animal rights]]

message: I moved Husbandry Institute links to a new catagory -- as it does not promote AR, it does not belong in any of the other catagories. Welfare is different than rights. --Biophilic 19:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re/moved Husbandry Institute

message: User:SlimVirgin reverted without discussion. Not good WP behaviour. I have reconsidered the edit and edited it accordingly. Pls discuss before reverting.
I have also attempted to copy edit and begin reorganisation in order to bring the word limit towards WP target. Please remember that bulk reverts are not good WP behaviour. In accordance with wikipedia policy I have referenced the points previously at the top and moved detail to the appropriate sections. The reference at the top to Frey and Scrutton was incomplete so I hope anyone who is wedded to it will complete it (note that Frey is in the references). Likewise with the RSPCA ref. 
I've created a separate animal welfare quotes article and referenced it (note that not all the quotes were animal rights quotes, so I used the welfare tag - I hope this meets with consensus.
I've copy edited and merged the two criticsm sections (why have two??).
There is much POV on both sides which needs removing. Mccready 14:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the material you deleted. The intro, in particular, was decided by consensus after a lot of discussion. Please respect the tag at the top of this page. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  drawing the line 

message: Above reminded me of a need of discussion about distorting facts and fakes in animal rights movement. I fell it needs at least a mention and warning to users, who might take pictures from 1980's of small zoo cages and lab animals as typical to modern treatment of animals.
:If you have reputable sources for that behavior by particular activists, it would be better in Animal liberation movement or in the article about the group it's about, or the individual activist if you have a  name, but it's not related to the concept of animal rights. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distorting facts and propaganda in animal rights 

message: User:SlimVirginwho is an administrator and should know better has offered inadequate explanation for her reverts. She claims the intro was agreed after discussion but provides no links to this to counter my research of the talk page. 
Egregious, though I assume good faith, was her labelling of her bulk revert as minor in the edit summary.
She has a strong interest in the article, stating on her userpage "My main editing interests are the Middle East and animal rights". Given that, I would expect better behaviour than bulk reverts and a failure to discuss adequately. She fails to address most of the specific points I raised above and rather than repeat them here I ask her and others to do so if they wish to revert again. 
I have carefully checked her edits and incorporated some of them and am happy to discuss. The following are my reasons for additional edits:
*re "distinction between sentient or self-aware animals" it is not only activists who make such a distinction
*the qualification of the "human" with "being" is POV. Human means human despite the wishes of some activists to extend the use of the word. In any case I hope my reworking of the sentence avoids the controversy.
*"infringes upon" is tautological
*I agree that "may be little more than automata, capable of basic reflexes" is a better wording
*I've shortened the ref to Oswald.
*I can't see the need to qualify Israel for a longer and more awkward sentence. I ask User:SlimVirgin not to bring her views on the Middle East to this page unless they are relevant
*can/may is an old grammatical argument but I won't insist
*animal rights seems more common than animal-rights
On the quotes issue. I am surprised that an administrator does not follow WP policy on this. By all means link to wikiquotes. 
I've placed a link to Model organism. The statement is logical extrapolation needing no source.
I have taken great pains and much time to consider carefully each revert of User:SlimVirgin and expect the same respect from her. If User:SlimVirgin or anyone else bulk reverts for a third time without adequate discussion I will begin an RfC process. Mccready 09:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Post by banned user deleted. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sockpuppet of User:Blu Aardvark blocked. AnnH ♫ 08:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SlimVirgin reverts again 

message: User:SlimVirgin, I will not repeat myself. Please read my extensive points in two recent posts above and reply to them sensibly. You have already been critised on Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents:
: "she has displayed a rather disturbing lack of editing tact (considering that she is an administrator"
The response to your question above is contained in posts I have already made. Have you read them? I agreed with you and took the list away in my very next edit, which you reverted seemingly without reading.
You stated on another page that I had removed criticism from the lead. In the absence your detailed reasoning, I can only hope my latest attempt meets your wishes.
For the fourth time, I have again spent a lot of time on this. Please do me the courtesy of trying to respond properly rather than bulk reverting. Mccready 06:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mccready, you seem to miss the fact that it is you who is refusing to answer my queries (see above), you who has ignored the tag at the top of the talk page asking that changes be discussed before being made, and you (not only me) who keeps reverting. I will continue to restore the consensus version. Please discuss your changes on talk before making them. Also, please stop using attack headers and threatening edit summaries. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  4th attempt 

message: "The vast majority of animal-rights advocates adopt vegetarian or vegan diets; they may also avoid clothes made of animal skins, such as leather shoes, and will not use products such as cosmetics, pharmaceutical products, or certain inks or dyes known to contain so-called animal byproducts." 
We need to remove the "so-called" since this is a word to be avoided. --BHC 19:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit to be made when page is unprotected 

message: SlimVirgin made the following comment above for which she should apologise. "Mccready, you're trolling now." This comment was the most offensive in a stream of offence which also included her statement. "I understand how to write intros. You actually don't, although I realize you think you're the expert." The page should not remain protected at the whim of an admin who behaves like this. For the record, I will continue to abide by WP policy. If lifting of page protection does not proceed expeditiously I will seek other forums to have the dispute examined. Mccready 03:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please say which of the objections you listed remain outstanding in your view. You are the one who is holding up the unprotection. The faster you list your remaining objections, the faster we can unlock the page. And, for the fourth or fifth time, please stop creating attack headers. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I replied days ago to your 09:39 April 10 edit. See above. My question is: which, if any, of these objections do you consider to be outstanding i.e. not settled? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This is absurd. I replied 10 days ago, and have asked you many times since then for a response, as I do once again. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And here. I have replied to every point you raised. Now I just want to know which objections of yours remain. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You were three days too late. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: The Nazi thing was added again, and I've removed it because of the source:
:Critics of animal rights have pointed to the support for animal rights by the Nazi regime in Germany, and its anti-vivisection legislation. Kathleen Marquardt, founder of "Putting People First" and author of Animal Scam, The Beastly Abuse of Human Rights, writes that "By pretending to extend rights to animals, which by nature are incapable of moral cognition, the Nazis ultimately annihilated the very concept of "rights." And just as the dogma of animal rights led to the destruction of human rights under Nazism, it leads to the destruction of human rights today." 
According to a book review, the author Kathleen Marquardt is a "Montana ranch mom," not what we'd call a reliable source. The book itself is a described as a "manifesto," and is out of print. If anyone wants to return this material, please source it to someone reputable, and more than one, because it says according to "critics," not according to "one Montana ranch mom." Also note that the Nazis did not extend rights to animals. They introduced the same vivisection-control legislation that the British had at the time. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nazis again

message: The version I propose is:
Animal rights, or animal liberation, is a social movement to achieve rights for animals so they are not regarded legally or morally as property, or treated as resources for human purposes. The movement says animals should be regarded as persons and included in the moral community, Taylor, Angus. Animals and Ethics: An Overview of the Philosophical Debate, Broadview Press, May 2003.  by giving their basic interests — for example, the interest in avoiding suffering — the same consideration as humans. 
My reasons are:
*1. "radical" is a value judgement which appears to be OR
*2. "merely" is a value judgement perjorative to those who merely don't go as far as Animal Rights proponents prefer
*3. "human" is one word to replace two "our own". 
*4. The "our own" seeks to bring the reader into the same mindset as the writer and is therefore manipulative
*5. My version makes "legal and moral" comment once. The alternate version makes the comment about property twice and therefore suffers from redundancy. 
*6. "The claim is" is an awkward construction; "says" is briefer.
In summary I think my version is more concise, though I would prefer not to use "moral community" because that term is used by its proponents in a normative fashion. At least the reader should be told what is meant by "moral community".
Mccready 02:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently because you're wikistalking her, according to her edit summaries. If this is indeed the case, and I have no reason to doubt SV, then you need to stop and I encourage her to continue not responding to you. The original content is accurate and well within guideline and policy, BTW. FeloniousMonk 16:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You turned up here, which I regularly edit and you had never edited. You turned up at Lauren Slater, which I regularly edit and you had never edited. You turned up at New anti-Semitism, which I regularly edit and you had never edited. You turned up at Rat Park, which I created but you had never edited. Could be a cooincidence, of course. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This is to let Mccready know, as required by policy, that I'll be using rollback for his edits from now on, because the reason they're unacceptable has been explained several times by more than one editor, and his continued reverting looks like trolling. I also won't be commenting again. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Mccready: this is a controversial topic and you know your edits to it have been considered contentious in the past.  The smart move here would be to discuss on Talk before making wholesale changes which look on the face of it to be subtle rewordings of previously rejected versions.  The smart move would be to play nice, talk first, and not poke admins with a sharp stick.  So: are you smart? Just zis Guy you know? 17:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top 

message: Having just read some of this article, I have to say I found the intro a little misleading.  In particular, the lines 
"but also to include species other than human beings within the moral community, [1] by giving their basic interests — for example, the interest in avoiding suffering — the same consideration as our own. The claim is that animals should no longer be regarded legally or morally as property, or treated merely as resources for human purposes, but should instead be regarded as persons."
made me think that the article was saying the Animal Rights movement was advocating equal status between humans and animals (which I know no to be the case).  Later on the article clarified my concerns, and re-reading the introduction after reading the rest of the article it makes more sense (apart from the person bit]].  My concern is that if the first thing people see when they read the article is something they believe untrue, it will put them off the whole article.
Given the controversy, and efforts already made to solve it, I don't want to simply edit the intro.  May I suggest it be looked at again?  I'd be happy to contribute some suggestions as to how it could be re-worded, but not if everyone is too fed up to consider new versions of the intro. Captainj 13:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. Though I would say that the introduction is not neutral, rather than just misleading. It shows bias through word choice.Kyle key 16:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any ideas on how to modify it? Maybe just delete the bit I quoted?Captainj 19:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro misleading?