Idiocy knows no bounds (or British Academia even dumber than US?)

[tyme]

"How can you say whether an animal wants to filmed? No animal will understand the concept," he said.

I'm confused.  Aren't humans still classified as animals?

Animal rights activists should be the first to point out that certain other species might, if taught or given enough time to learn, be able to demonstrate some basic understanding of photography.  Some animals are shy, right?  And if they can understand the concept of a mirror, which a few seem to, and if they can understand that a photo is basically a time-bound unflipped mirror image, they they might be able to attach their shyness to pictures of themselves, and thus be able to understand at least a little bit the emotion of desiring privacy.

A simple response would be that they have no expectation of privacy, and they are free to stake out property and build homes with opaque walls if they want to.  :)

[Balog]

I'm confused.  Aren't humans still classified as animals?

Nope, legally humans are very different.

[MicroBalrog]

Animal cruelty laws exist for the same reason necrophilia laws do. Corpses don't have rights, but we recognize some behaviours as prima facia abhorent.

This.

That said, animal cruelty laws are often expanded upon, and exploited, by animal rights... activists. For example, down where I live, killing pigeons is illegal entirely.

[Balog]

This.

That said, animal cruelty laws are often expanded upon, and exploited, by animal rights... activists. For example, down where I live, killing pigeons is illegal entirely.

Right, any good law will inevitably be exploited by stupid people. All we can do is try to stop them.

[Mabs2]

unnecessary

No one said anything about that.

[mellestad]

Open questions:  Where is the line?  Are laws, say, penalizing dog fighting with fines and jail time valid?

[taurusowner]

Why should that be illegal when we allow horse and dog racing which is still just as damaging to the animals.  Greyhounds are often bred just for racing, and then killed only a year or two later after their speed starts to dip just a little bit.  They are treated as a resource for our amusement.  What is the difference between that and dog fighting?

I think Balog is on the right track.  We have certain laws not because of the animals themselves, but because of what certain behavior says about us.  Torturing a cat isn't wrong because the cat is in pain. It's wrong because you derive pleasure out of that pain.

The problem is, we as a society have overstepped the bound of reason long ago.  If I have a dog that bites a child, I cannot simply take it out to the country and shoot it.  No, we need to spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars jumping through hoops and getting approvals for the "right people" to put the dog down if they think it's right.  We have lost sense with reality.  Animals exist for us.  Not for themselves.  Hurting animals is wrong for that same reason, because of what it says about you, not because of them.  And as long as how we treat an animal does not fall into that group of behavior that shows the human to be deviant, there should be no law against it.  We eat cows, some still use them for plowing.  We use dogs for sniffing, horses for pulling things, etc.  They are tools.  Again, so long as they treatment of animals is not something that shows you to be a damaged human, the law should not come into play.

[mellestad]

Why should that be illegal when we allow horse and dog racing which is still just as damaging to the animals.  Greyhounds are often bred just for racing, and then killed only a year or two later after their speed starts to dip just a little bit.  They are treated as a resource for our amusement.  What is the difference between that and dog fighting?

I don't think there is any, but personally I think if we're ok eating them then there shouldn't be any legal penalty for doing anything to animals.  If you can kill and eat something because you like bacon more than lima beans, I can't think of a moral argument for keeping that entity safe from harm if someone wants to see blood for pleasure.  Heck, most of us here have hunted for sport (yea, yea, not the same thing).  We treat animals like non-living matter right up to the point where our empathy kicks in, typically for animals we have domesticated.

I've heard people argue that you should ban it because animal cruelty leads to people cruelty, but I have not seen any studies that prove that (I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm not interested enough to make a serious study of it), but I imagine psychos kill puppies because they are psycho, rather that psychos are psycho because they killed puppies.

To be honest, I have more philosophical respect for the rabid animal ideology than I do for the half-way-in-between ideology because at least the animal rights group is internally consistent in their beliefs.

I care a great deal for my pets, I just don't think it is appropriate to force anyone to care for other animals with threat of legal penalty.  I'm a farm guy, I've had to put down my share of animals...every time I get teary eyed, but then I go back inside and eat a steak for dinner.  The only way I'm able to rationalize that is by putting animals strictly in the class of 'property'.

That isn't a popular viewpoint though, so I don't usually express it.  My wife and I certainly never discuss it, haha.

Edit:  I wrote before your edit.  Excellent points.

[mellestad]

@Ragnar:  I just had a thought though...isn't that akin to a thought crime then?  We are punishing people on the assumption they are deviant, even though they have not caused 'real' harm?

This sort of goes back to my post about studies...I would probably modify my opinion if a strong *causal* link could be shown from animal abuse to human abuse.  My intuitive sense is the link is a correlation rather than causation though, but I know how much my intuition is worth (not much!)

[taurusowner]

True.  But I got pretty hammered by most members on this forum a few weeks ago for saying that I think all animal abuse crimes are baseless given that animals (other than humans) are non-sentient biological machines.  I'm just trying to find a middle ground right now.

[mellestad]

True.  But I got pretty hammered by most members on this forum a few weeks ago for saying that I think all animal abuse crimes are baseless given that animals (other than humans) are non-sentient biological machines.  I'm just trying to find a middle ground right now.

That is why I usually keep my mouth shut, heh.

That, and I really don't have any passion for it either way as long as animal rights laws don't slippery slope into blocking medical research too much or infringing on my enjoyment of pork.

[MicroBalrog]

Right, any good law will inevitably be exploited by stupid people. All we can do is try to stop them.

In Israel we have a phrase, I'm not sure if it exists in English, "putting out fires".

It means running about and solving local problems rather than solving the underlying problem.

To do that, we need to somehow thoroughly discredit the ideology of 'animal rights'.

[taurusowner]

In Israel we have a phrase, I'm not sure if it exists in English, "putting out fires".

It means running about and solving local problems rather than solving the underlying problem.

To do that, we need to somehow thoroughly discredit the ideology of 'animal rights'.

Any time you try to do that, people will bring up the most common humanized pet animals such as dogs and cats and claim that their behavior MUST mean there is some sort of divine spark inside them too.  No one really owns cows as pets.  So most people are really fine with beef because the cow has not been humanized.  But a lot of people own dogs and project a great deal of emotionality onto them.  The fact they a dog is essentially the same as a cow escapes them.  They don't see dogs as "animals" but instead as "mans best friend" and so forth.  This emotional connection and reaction is easy to use for the 'animal rights' groups.

The fact is, a lot of the 'animal rights' arguments are not based in logic but in emotion.  This makes them inherently difficult to discredit as an emotional reaction is hard to "fight" so to speak.  You can have someone who won't think twice of putting a rifle round through a deer, or slaughtering a chicken or cow for meat; yet simultaneously think the idea of any harm coming to a canine is next to murder.  It's that kind of break in rationality that undermines any attempt to discredit 'animal rights'.

[tyme]

given that animals (other than humans) are non-sentient biological machines.

Define sentience.

[Tallpine]

My own animals mean a lot more to me than just "non-sentient biological machines."  Heck, I like my horse and dog and cat more than most people 

We have a relationship: I provide them with food, water, shelter, and health care, and they provide me with companionship, security, and carry me around.  They are not "free" in the true sense of the word (except maybe for the cats), but they certainly live longer and better lives than they would purely in the wild.

There is a circular reasoning fault/contradiction with the "animal rights" philosophy.  If we apply "human" standards and rights to all animals, then we must admit that we as humans are something different and special, because animals in the wild kill each other quite freely for food and sometimes for mating rights.  If we as humans are just another animal, then we have every right to predate on other critters however we wish.

[tyme]

There is a circular reasoning fault/contradiction with the "animal rights" philosophy.  If we apply "human" standards and rights to all animals, then we must admit that we as humans are something different and special, because animals in the wild kill each other quite freely for food and sometimes for mating rights.  If we as humans are just another animal, then we have every right to predate on other critters however we wish.

I pretty much agree.

Biologically, assuming there is no supernatural God, humans are "just another animal."  We do not have some absolute moral authority to decide how we will and won't treat everything else.

Philosophically, whether "human" standards and rights apply to all animals, or whether "animal" standards apply to everything including us -- anarchy -- or something in between, is an entirely social decision.  A society could decide to adopt any standard it likes.


We already ban animal cruelty, presumably because:
1) it's emotionally distressing for humans
2) it's a predictor of future violence toward humans

My concern about excessive/constant criticism of animal rights activism (from the political right) is that it works to undermine element 1, by subtly conditioning us to care less about animals, and that may end up causing more of element 2.

I do not think that we should ban animal research or hunting, but I think we should all work to maintain some emotional sensitivity to the well being of animals, because I think that is closely connected with our treatment of other humans, and perhaps our intrinsic sense of ethics and morals.  I worry that a lot of the negative reaction to animal rights activism is doing away with that sensitivity.  Everyone who has pets already understands this dichotomy: there's a responsibility to care for pets and ensure their well being, even while the owner/pet arrangement is not perfectly equitable in an absolute sense for the pet.  However, even some pet owners seem to adopt a troubling attitude where their pets are well treated and cared for, but other animals and particularly wild animals are completely void of any rights even including rights against animal cruelty.

The blame might lie with the animal rights activists for instigating the conflict which is having those negative effects, but if we can't control what animal rights activists do, we have to control our response so that the outcome isn't even more negative.

Furthermore, what does staunch opposition to animal rights activism say about us as human beings?  It may not be rational to grant animals any rights at all, but we are not rational creatures.  Making social policy based on pure rationality has emotional costs.

[MicroBalrog]

Furthermore, what does staunch opposition to animal rights activism say about us as human beings

Animal rights activism in the form that assumes animals have or should have rights similar to those of humans – i.e. that hunting and so forth is morally wrong – is, in the long-term, morally detrimental to the well-being of humans.

Why?

Consider the logical conclusion of such activism. Suppose I conceded that meat-eating is wrong. I do not actually need meat in the sense that I could survive on a vegetarian diet. If I accepted, however, that meat-eating is wrong, reasonably then, any killing of an animal other than in self-defense would be wrong – not just for meat, but for leather, etc. So far so good, right?

But suppose we accepted this morality (I did not mean 'banned meat'. I understand that not all proponents of these ideas want to ban meat. Some do, but hopefully not most). On this logic, any excessive consumption would be morally wrong, given the damage even vegetarian farming does to animals -  birds get caught in wheat combines, habitat gets destroyed, etc. The result would be a world-view where anybody who consumes more than they 'need' is a sinful person – a sort of Gaia First environmentalism by the back door. Logically then, economic growth and a consumerist economy would be morally evil in this ideology.

Me, I happen to think maintaining a consumerist economy is important.

[Tallpine]

we are not rational creatures

That's for sure, when some folks cannot make the distinction between "cruelty" to animals and violating their "privacy" 

I think I treat our animals well.  Our horses, for instance, get a steady supply of hay and grain and water and some pasture grazing time in exchange for a few hours of being ridden each week.  Seems to me like they actually enjoy being ridden ... our colt will come stand beside the fence so that you can get on 

I do feel an obligation to meat animals (or maybe to myself?) to put them down as quickly and painlessly as possible.  I don't know what it feels like to be shot in the chest, but deer go down pretty quickly if hit in the right place.  And I doubt chickens feel much after their spine is severed, despite the muscular reactions that take place.

[tyme]

If I accepted, however, that meat-eating is wrong, reasonably then, any killing of an animal other than in self-defense would be wrong – not just for meat, but for leather, etc. So far so good, right?

I don't think so.  Responsible wildlife management and varmint/pest control are still perfectly adequate justifications for hunting.