Anti-humans sued by terror victim [Archive]

Abdul Alhazred

21st April 2007, 02:21 PM

http://i13.tinypic.com/4ievol5.gif

Furrier sues Portland, protesters (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/117712593348370.xml&coll=7)

An embattled Portland furrier filed a federal civil rights lawsuit Friday against animal-rights activists who helped drive the company out of downtown and the city of Portland for allegedly failing to take action against the raucous demonstrations.

Schumacher Furs LLC accuses two national animal rights organizations -- In Defense of Animals and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals -- of a vulgar pattern of harassment that included public nudity, obscene gestures, chants, insults and written threats of death or serious bodily injury.

The suit accuses the protesters of sometimes following employees and customers of the store for blocks.

"In addition," the suit alleges, "the protests and demonstrations have included throwing or dispersing fecal matter, urine, chalk and red paint on or around the building and adjoining sidewalks at plaintiffs' store."

The suit also names as defendants the Animal Liberation Front, an underground group described by the FBI as a leading domestic terrorist organization, and Matt Rossell, whose In Defense of Animals group claimed victory for running Schumacher Furs out of downtown.

...

Emphasis added.

Darat

21st April 2007, 03:01 PM

http://i13.tinypic.com/4ievol5.gif

Furrier sues Portland, protesters (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/117712593348370.xml&coll=7)

Emphasis added.

In the UK animal rights extremists have sent letter/package bombs, stolen the buried remains of a relative, posted leaflets around the neighbourhood of people who work at places they identify as "bad places" telling their neighbours the person was a paedophile, vandalised peoples' cars, houses and other property and so on.

In the UK they certainly have been the group most prolific at using terror tactics in recent years. This is an article from 2000 citing over 1,200 attacks in 1999, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/902751.stm). Here's an article relating a 4 year campaign of terror against one man: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/4176798.stm

Mycroft

21st April 2007, 03:37 PM

I can almost understand that kind of fanatacism in the anti-abortion crowd. At least they believe they are defending human life.

fuelair

21st April 2007, 04:15 PM

They are all B.S. and hopefully will not be around much longer to spread their sicknesses.

This refers to activists - I am unconcerned with those who only hold the philosophy -just the murderering/ destructive cowards who act but hide.

UserGoogol

21st April 2007, 04:31 PM

I can almost understand that kind of fanatacism in the anti-abortion crowd. At least they believe they are defending human life.

Well yeah, but what's so special about being human? Personally, I can see the argument for animal rights. A combination of laziness and moral uncertainty prevents me from even going so far as to be vegetarian, but it doesn't seem like an unreasonable position to hold.

It is unfortunate that so many use such extreme methods as are described in the linked article though. Even if their cause is just, when they do stuff like this, so all they're doing is hurting people without really helping that many animals, since this isn't really the sort of thing that changes people's minds.

Warge

21st April 2007, 04:40 PM

Isn't this just a sign of undemocratic forces in action? IMO, anti-democratic groups are the same no matter what they fight for or against - animal rights, abortion, fascism, red meat etc.

Dustin Kesselberg

21st April 2007, 08:55 PM

"Anti-Humans"? What a deceitful name for a thread.

These people they are protesting against are either manufacturing or selling fur. If you're going to go into the business of death, selling the skin of animals for fashion purposes, then you'd better be prepared to get flack for it.

Let's look at this from the standpoint of harm. Who is doing the more harm? Animal activists threatening and vandalizing, or these people who are dealing the fur of thousands upon thousands of animals? It's scientifically proven that even the least intelligent animals are able to suffer and feel pain. So who is doing more damage? Who's stupid enough to believe threats and vandalizing is more harmful than killing thousands of animals and selling their fur? That's the real question.

Dustin Kesselberg

21st April 2007, 09:06 PM

For those of you who want more info, see these threads...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=78532

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=78041

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=78991

quixotecoyote

21st April 2007, 09:19 PM

Me for one. The only thing sacred about any life is that we are a part of it, that we value it. We are humans, so we value human life more. Apparently other animals experience pain analogous to our own, and so we have a duty to try and minimize that pain.

The furriers were't torturing animals. If the animals suffered it wsa probably in violation of animal cruelty laws. If that is the case the protestors should be picketing the police department. If there were no laws (out the fur was imported) they should be picketing the legislature.

The only thing the furrier can be pinned on is exploiting the death of animals. I say so what? Animals are all going to die. We are all going to die as well, but we have a communal interest in extending our lives and that has shaped our morality to forbid exploiting the deaths of humans. We have no such communal interest for animals, and so many of us do not hae our morality shaped that way. In fact, ending other animals lives early provides us benefits and has historically provided benefits to the species, and so our morality has evolved to approve of using other animals for our benefit.

As much as I love my ferrets on a personal level, I see no reason to give their mink relatives any ethical standing. I would stand against cruelty in the process of killing and skinning them, but that is because cruelty is wrong regardless of the subject.

gtc

21st April 2007, 09:23 PM

Let's look at this from the standpoint of harm. Who is doing the more harm? Animal activists threatening and vandalizing, or these people who are dealing the fur of thousands upon thousands of animals?

Clearly it is the animal activists in both the UK cases cited by Darat and the Portland case.

Dustin Kesselberg

21st April 2007, 09:39 PM

Me for one. The only thing sacred about any life is that we are a part of it, that we value it. We are humans, so we value human life more. Apparently other animals experience pain analogous to our own, and so we have a duty to try and minimize that pain.

What makes humans the sole arbitrators of what is valuable and what isn't? Animals value their own lives and the lives of their kin.

The furriers were't torturing animals. If the animals suffered it wsa probably in violation of animal cruelty laws. If that is the case the protestors should be picketing the police department. If there were no laws (out the fur was imported) they should be picketing the legislature.

The argument is that killing animals solely for fur, which is simply a fashion item, is wrong.

The only thing the furrier can be pinned on is exploiting the death of animals. I say so what? Animals are all going to die. We are all going to die as well, but we have a communal interest in extending our lives and that has shaped our morality to forbid exploiting the deaths of humans. We have no such communal interest for animals, and so many of us do not hae our morality shaped that way. In fact, ending other animals lives early provides us benefits and has historically provided benefits to the species, and so our morality has evolved to approve of using other animals for our benefit.

There is no such thing as "communal morality". There are moral guidelines agreed upon by most members of a community but no community's members agree on all moral guidelines. That includes the value of human life. Moreover, If you try to measure morality on popular vote then you're moving away from logic. Think Nazi Germany. If the consensus in Nazi Germany was that killing Jews was O.K. does that make it O.K.? No.

You can't make a moral argument based on popular opinion and what benefits the majority. That's called "utilitarianism" and it's full of fallacies and potholes and dead ends that lead nowhere.

As much as I love my ferrets on a personal level, I see no reason to give their mink relatives any ethical standing. I would stand against cruelty in the process of killing and skinning them, but that is because cruelty is wrong regardless of the subject.

Who suffers more? Your Mink having been killed for fur or some kook who thinks she needs to wear a fur coat to the prom? Very easy question.

Dustin Kesselberg

21st April 2007, 09:41 PM

Clearly it is the animal activists in both the UK cases cited by Darat and the Portland case.

Vandalizing property and slander are more harmful than killing thousands of animals simply for their fur?

Schneibster

21st April 2007, 09:55 PM

When the animal rights activists start trying to feed cats a vegetarian diet, I stop listening. I don't think there's a point to harassing people or committing crimes over this. If you think it's wrong, go try to get a law passed. If it doesn't work, sorry.

The worst part of it, as far as I'm concerned, is that the people doing stupid things in support of this cause have harmed their cause to the point where no one reasonable will discuss it. It has set back the dialog on this issue by a generation or more; people who hold this cause are now seen as nutjobs. Good job.

Force never works. Everyone who tries to enforce morality using force or intimidation is wrong, every single time, no matter how good their cause is. Until they stop, they will not succeed.

Dustin Kesselberg

21st April 2007, 09:58 PM

quixotecoyote

21st April 2007, 10:01 PM

What makes humans the sole arbitrators of what is valuable and what isn't? Animals value their own lives and the lives of their kin.

I'm sure they do, and if we were discussing what policies other animals should follow, that would be relevant. However since we are discussing human behavior, it is the human values that concern us and human values are created by humans.

The argument is that killing animals solely for fur, which is simply a fashion item, is wrong.

My argument is that the life of another animal has no value other than that which we assign to it.

There is no such thing as "communal morality". There are moral guidelines agreed upon by most members of a community but no community's members agree on all moral guidelines.

That was what I meant by communal morality, I apologize for my unclear terms.

That includes the value of human life. Moreover, If you try to measure morality on popular vote then you're moving away from logic. Think Nazi Germany. If the consensus in Nazi Germany was that killing Jews was does that make it ? No.

Of course not, we don't share Nazi morality. If we did, we'd say it was okay. So from our perspective, it is fortunate we were strong enough to destroy them along with their morality.

You can't make a moral argument based on popular opinion and what benefits the majority. That's called "utilitarianism" and it's full of fallacies and potholes and dead ends that lead nowhere.

I'm not using an appeal to the betterment of the majority, I'm arguing that anthropocentrism is justified from a nuanced cultural relativist standpoint.

Who suffers more? Your Mink having been killed for fur or some kook who thinks she needs to wear a fur coat to the prom? Very easy question.

Depends on if you are defining suffering as 'experiencing pain' or 'experiencing a situation perceived as negative from one's own viewpoint'. It is obvious that a mink does not want to die, it is less obvious that is a valid reason for not killing it.

gtc

21st April 2007, 10:08 PM

Vandalizing property and slander are more harmful than killing thousands of animals simply for their fur?

Have you read Darat's post? Have you read the OP of this thread?

I ask because that is not all the activists did.

Dustin Kesselberg

21st April 2007, 10:13 PM

I'm sure they do, and if we were discussing what policies other animals should follow, that would be relevant. However since we are discussing human behavior, it is the human values that concern us and human values are created by humans.

You first claimed that the only thing that made a life valuable was the fact that "we value it". I rebutted by pointing out that there's nothing special about humans that makes them the sole determiner of what is valuable and what isn't and that other animals value their own lives and the lives of their kin.

Now what are you saying? That the only burden we have is to other humans? Or something to that effect? That humans should only treat other humans ethically and exploit other animals?

My argument is that the life of another animal has no value other than that which we assign to it.

Which is bunk, as I pointed out above.

Of course not, we don't share Nazi morality. If we did, we'd say it was okay. So from our perspective, it is fortunate we were strong enough to destroy them along with their morality.

So who's to say that what the Nazi's did was wrong again? Your previous argument was that morality should be determined by "communal standards". If that's the case then it would of been moral for the nazi's to murder 6 million people because it was the "communal standard"?

I'm not using an appeal to the betterment of the majority, I'm arguing that anthropocentrism is justified from a nuanced cultural relativist standpoint.

A.K.A. human chauvinism. You're arguing that the fact that millions of animals dying so that humans can enjoy their fur is justifiable. You're basically claiming that humans right to wear fur for fashion is more important than an animals right not to be killed for it's fur.

[quote=quixotecoyote;2541489]Depends on if you are defining suffering as 'experiencing pain' or 'experiencing a situation perceived as negative from one's own viewpoint'. It is obvious that a mink does not want to die, it is less obvious that is a valid reason for not killing it.

That's the most important reason not to kill him. That's the most important reason not to kill anything or anyone. The fact that it does not want to die. If I wanted to die and was totally sane, It should be legal for someone to kill me if I ask them. However if I did not want to die, it shouldn't be legal.

Dustin Kesselberg

21st April 2007, 10:15 PM

Have you read Darat's post? Have you read the OP of this thread?

I ask because that is not all the activists did.

I have read her links. One is broken. The other lists vandalism and slander and threats. None of which I would consider more harmful than killing thousands of animals.

List the things they've done that are more harmful than killing thousands of animals. I can't think of anything short of killing people.

quixotecoyote

21st April 2007, 10:25 PM

Now what are you saying? That the only burden we have is to other humans? Or something to that effect? That humans should only treat other humans ethically and exploit other animals

What I'm saying is that what other animals value has no bearing on what we value. Humans are the arbiters of right and wrong because we are the only ones deciding it. Animals don't get input on the process. Humans can try to speak for animals, as you are doing, but it is still a human doing it.

So who's to say that what the Nazi's did was wrong again? Your previous argument was that morality should be determined by "communal standards". If that's the case then it would of been moral for the nazi's to murder 6 million people because it was the "communal standard"?

You've already agreed with me that is was. I quote you:

Think Nazi Germany. If the consensus in Nazi Germany was that killing Jews was O.K. does that make it O.K.? No.

Obviously you were aware that Nazis considered the killing of Jews moral, and so within Nazi society it was a moral belief. Within ours it was not, and thanks to having the neccesary power, we stopped them.

Morality is not just determined by the societal standard (what I should have said rather than communal), it is the societal standard. Obviously there are variations from subgroup to subgroup, but what we call morality is determined by our upbringing within societal values. Obviously there's biological influences to what we are pre-disposed to consider moral, as evidenced by many basic similarties in moral standards around the globe. But there are also many differences, and within any given society morality is not just determined by, but will be the opinions of the majority of the group.

A.K.A. human chauvinism. You're arguing that the fact that millions of animals dying so that humans can enjoy their fur is justifiable. You're basically claiming that humans right to wear fur for fashion is more important than an animals right not to be killed for it's fur.

Perjoritave label aside, you've got it precisely.

That's the most important reason not to kill him. That's the most important reason not to kill anything or anyone. The fact that it does not want to die. If I wanted to die and was totally sane, It should be legal for someone to kill me if I ask them. However if I did not want to die, it shouldn't be legal.

I asked you to clarify your meaning of suffering, I repeat that request. In response to this, I disagree. Animals are not people. You are drawing a false equivalency. What applies to you does not apply to a dog, cow, mink, quail, frog, fish, wasp, worm, bacteria, or virus. There are different standards.

SimonD

21st April 2007, 10:31 PM

What makes humans the sole arbitrators of what is valuable and what isn't? Animals value their own lives and the lives of their kin.

The natural order of things. The 'stronger' animal will always attempt to exploit the 'weaker'. Is this not how it works in nature?

The argument is that killing animals solely for fur, which is simply a fashion item, is wrong..

We have been hunting animals for 1000's of years to provide clothing for ourselves. The only problem I have, is when the rest of the animal is not used. This is very wasteful.

There is no such thing as "communal morality". There are moral guidelines agreed upon by most members of a community but no community's members agree on all moral guidelines. That includes the value of human life. Moreover, If you try to measure morality on popular vote then you're moving away from logic. Think Nazi Germany. If the consensus in Nazi Germany was that killing Jews was O.K. does that make it O.K.? No.

While I agree killing the Jews was wrong, if Hitler had won the war we would be saying what a great guy he was.

You can't make a moral argument based on popular opinion and what benefits the majority. That's called "utilitarianism" and it's full of fallacies and potholes and dead ends that lead nowhere..

Popular decision making by politicans is a daily event

Dustin Kesselberg

21st April 2007, 10:56 PM

What I'm saying is that what other animals value has no bearing on what we value. Humans are the arbiters of right and wrong because we are the only ones deciding it. Animals don't get input on the process. Humans can try to speak for animals, as you are doing, but it is still a human doing it.

What other animals value has no bearing on what humans value? Then why does what other humans value have any bearing on what I value? Why does what you value have any bearing on what I personally value? If you value your life, why should someone care?

Humans aren't the arbiters of right and wrong. No one is. The fact that humans make choices says nothing about "right vs wrong". If a human decides that murder is right does that make it right? No.

Obviously you were aware that Nazis considered the killing of Jews moral, and so within Nazi society it was a moral belief. Within ours it was not, and thanks to having the neccesary power, we stopped them.

The fact that the Nazi's considered it moral doesn't make it right.

Perjoritave label aside, you've got it precisely.

Well I'm afraid your arguments are bunk.

I asked you to clarify your meaning of suffering, I repeat that request. In response to this, I disagree. Animals are not people. You are drawing a false equivalency. What applies to you does not apply to a dog, cow, mink, quail, frog, fish, wasp, worm, bacteria, or virus. There are different standards.

By definition..
Suffering (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=suffering)-1 : to endure death, pain, or distress

Animals (other than humans) aren't people, however they still feel pain and are aware of suffering. This is the reason we should not cause them suffering. The same standards clearly won't apply to a human as to a dog, or to a dog as to a frog. However the basics are still there.

Dustin Kesselberg

21st April 2007, 11:01 PM

The natural order of things. The 'stronger' animal will always attempt to exploit the 'weaker'. Is this not how it works in nature?

The question was, What makes humans the sole arbitrators of what is valuable and what isn't? The fact that humans can exploit other animals doesn't mean that they get to decide what is "valuable" and what isn't.

Moreover, Since humans are intelligent enough to know that what they are doing is causing suffering and that they don't need to be doing it (wearing fur) then they have more burden to stop doing it.

We have been hunting animals for 1000's of years to provide clothing for ourselves. The only problem I have, is when the rest of the animal is not used. This is very wasteful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyester

While I agree killing the Jews was wrong, if Hitler had won the war we would be saying what a great guy he was.

I wouldn't.

Popular decision making by politicans is a daily event

That doesn't make it "right". Politicians in the U.S. have decided that Marijuana should be illegal. Does that make it "right"?

gtc

21st April 2007, 11:17 PM

I have read her links. One is broken. The other lists vandalism and slander and threats. None of which I would consider more harmful than killing thousands of animals.

List the things they've done that are more harmful than killing thousands of animals. I can't think of anything short of killing people.

Darat is a he. The link is http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/902751.stm .

SimonD

21st April 2007, 11:25 PM

The question was, What makes humans the sole arbitrators of what is valuable and what isn't? The fact that humans can exploit other animals doesn't mean that they get to decide what is "valuable" and what isn't.

What's the diffence between an animal killing an animal and a human killing an animal? Humans are animals, right?

Moreover, Since humans are intelligent enough to know that what they are doing is causing suffering and that they don't need to be doing it (wearing fur) then they have more burden to stop doing it..

Don't humans try to use they intelligence to minimize the suffering of animals that they kill for production purpose?

Okay, there is a lot of places that don't do this. However, the point that I am making is that mankind used it's intelligence to create laws and tools to reduce the suffering of animals on farms, etc. Whether this is carried out or not is another matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyester

Hemp would have been a better example. Cotton is not the best crop to grow as far as it's impact on the land is concerned. Polyester is an oil based product. Fur is a natural product.

I wouldn't.

Nor would I. The point is, what is moral today may not be tomorrow.

That doesn't make it "right". Politicians in the U.S. have decided that Marijuana should be illegal. Does that make it "right"?

What is right? If a majority of a group of people vote for something, then it is right, for those people. For the rest - that's the price of living in a society. Sometime the few must suffer for the many.

Dustin Kesselberg

21st April 2007, 11:27 PM

Darat is a he. The link is http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/902751.stm .

I oppose some of the things listed in that link. Including releasing the minks into the wild. I also oppose the violence towards Colin Blackemore, though some of his experiments including sewing the eyes of kittens shut from birth, I have to say I oppose even if it is slightly applicable to humans.

Moreover, I don't consider threats or destruction of property to be more harmful than torturing or killing thousands or millions of animals for no purpose other than fashion or non-medicinal experiments.

quixotecoyote

21st April 2007, 11:29 PM

I suppose I'll answer these one at a time

What other animals value has no bearing on what humans value?

Correct as a rule, I'm sure we could come up with some odd exceptions if we tried.

Then why does what other humans value have any bearing on what I value?

It doesn't neccesarily have any bearing. However, if you were raised in the same society you are likely to share values and thus morals.

Why does what you value have any bearing on what I personally value?

Similar answer to the above, we'd need at least a partially shared value set for it to have any bearing. The point is refined below.

If you value your life, why should someone care?

That's one of the values we're pre-disposed towards. In all cultures there is some value placed on human life and regulations on ending it. However, simply because I value my life, I can't compell anyone else to value it. Their morality would have to already encompass that value.

The fact that the Nazi's considered it moral doesn't make it right.

Of course we wouldn't consider them right, we fought them under a competing moral system and won!

By definition..
Suffering-1 : to endure death, pain, or distress

Thank you, I'll note that definition if you want to come back to a point regarding suffering.

Animals (other than humans) aren't people, however they still feel pain and are aware of suffering. This is the reason we should not cause them suffering. The same standards clearly won't apply to a human as to a dog, or to a dog as to a frog. However the basics are still there.

I agree that we should inflict a minimum of pain and distress on animals. That is simply cruelty, and I'm sure that no one advocates cruelty. However, I do no see the life of an animal as a moral issue. As long as the cow is killed with a minimun of pain and distress (I do realize that often isn't the case) I see no problem with ending an animal's life early.

Growing up in America part of my moral hertiage is an unalienable right to life as applied to humans. Obviously life ends, so a more accurate reading would be the right to live free of attempts to end life. However animals were never included in that. For some people they were, and thus we have this debate.

It's generally more productive to discuss this from an ethical standpoint than a moral one but not much more productive. Even though ethical arguments are more objective by their nature, the starting assumptions still have to be agreed on and I doubt we can do that.

Dustin Kesselberg

21st April 2007, 11:35 PM

What's the diffence between an animal killing an animal and a human killing an animal? Humans are animals, right?

Humans are animals. However there is a difference between a human needlessly killing another animal and some animal killing a human. Humans are more intelligent and can make more complex moral judgments than any other animals. This means they have more responsibility to do so. The same reasoning applies towards mentally ill criminals. If a mentally ill person commits a crime and clearly doesn't know the difference between right and wrong, then we don't hold that person to the same standards as someone else.

Don't humans try to use they intelligence to minimize the suffering of animals that they kill for production purpose?

Okay, there is a lot of places that don't do this. However, the point that I am making is that mankind used it's intelligence to create laws and tools to reduce the suffering of animals on farms, etc. Whether this is carried out or not is another matter.

The argument I am making is that humans shouldn't kill another animal unless the need to do so is justifiable.

A new fur coat isn't justifiable. Sorry. Do you really believe it is?

Hemp would have been a better example. Cotton is not the best crop to grow as far as it's impact on the land is concerned. Polyester is an oil based product. Fur is a natural product.

The impact of cotton on the land is minimal. Cotton is natural as well.

So what if polyester is oil based?

The fact that "fur is natural" is irrelevant. The means of producing it requires killing living sentient beings.

Nor would I. The point is, what is moral today may not be tomorrow.

Killing Jews was immoral then and it's immoral now. The fact that the Nazi's thought it was moral is irrelevant.

What is right? If a majority of a group of people vote for something, then it is right, for those people. For the rest - that's the price of living in a society. Sometime the few must suffer for the many.

Wrong (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)-1 a : an injurious, unfair, or unjust act : action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause.

The laws prohibiting marijuana use are established as being injurious, unfair and unjust. Which inflict harm without due provocation.

quixotecoyote

21st April 2007, 11:38 PM

Dustin Kesselberg

21st April 2007, 11:41 PM

Correct as a rule, I'm sure we could come up with some odd exceptions if we tried.

It doesn't neccesarily have any bearing. However, if you were raised in the same society you are likely to share values and thus morals.

Similar answer to the above, we'd need at least a partially shared value set for it to have any bearing. The point is refined below.

That's one of the values we're pre-disposed towards. In all cultures there is some value placed on human life and regulations on ending it. However, simply because I value my life, I can't compell anyone else to value it. Their morality would have to already encompass that value.

So basically you support some sort of "Laissez faire" type of morality where whatever I think is moral is moral and whatever you think is moral is moral, whatever a society says is 'moral' is 'moral'... Is that the jist of it?

Of course we wouldn't consider them right, we fought them under a competing moral system and won!

What makes us right and them wrong then? Is it all relative and equal?

Thank you, I'll note that definition if you want to come back to a point regarding suffering.

You asked me to define it and I did.

I agree that we should inflict a minimum of pain and distress on animals. That is simply cruelty, and I'm sure that no one advocates cruelty. However, I do no see the life of an animal as a moral issue. As long as the cow is killed with a minimun of pain and distress (I do realize that often isn't the case) I see no problem with ending an animal's life early.

How about humans then? Why hold a different standard toward humans?

Growing up in America part of my moral hertiage is an unalienable right to life as applied to humans. Obviously life ends, so a more accurate reading would be the right to live free of attempts to end life. However animals were never included in that. For some people they were, and thus we have this debate.

So your moral beliefs are based solely upon what you were taught and nothing else?

It's generally more productive to discuss this from an ethical standpoint than a moral one but not much more productive. Even though ethical arguments are more objective by their nature, the starting assumptions still have to be agreed on and I doubt we can do that.

Most dictionary definitions I look at have "moral" and "ethical" as synonymous. You'll have to define each.

Dustin Kesselberg

21st April 2007, 11:46 PM

Justin:

Not trying to post out of turn or flood you here, but you seem to be headed towards arguing for an objective morality. The only way to justify that is an appeal to deity, and I'm not up for theology atm. So in the interests of time, would you tell me first if this is the case?

I'm an Atheist.

If you define "moral" as "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior" and "wrong" defined as "an injurious, unfair, or unjust act : action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause" then I'm just going on the definition of the words. When I say it is not "moral" to kill someone or something without due provocation or just cause then that is technically correct per the definition. This isn't "objective" by most definitions but it's true nonetheless. Just because something isn't "objective" doesn't mean it isn't true. Things that are subjective (existing within the mind) can also be true even if they don't exist technically outside of the mind. I.E. a definition of a word.

Moreover, I'm simply arguing that we should not inflict suffering or death upon any sentient being without due provocation or just cause. I'm also arguing that "a new fur coat" isn't due provocation or just cause. That's it.

quixotecoyote

22nd April 2007, 12:03 AM

Dustin:
I'm not going to respond on point because I think a general restatement will be clearer.

First off I wasn't being sarcastic about the defintion of suffering. I was just being polite about you clarification your usage.

Secondly, I will address the difference between ethics and morals as I was taught them.

Morality is your code of right and wrong. It's your gut-check. It's the combination of what evolution has produced as hard-wired survival insticts and the conditioning of the society you grew up in. It varies from culture to culture as people growing up in different cultures are conditioned differently. As you grow up, your morality changes as you gain new experiences that change your perception and engage in ethical analysis of your beliefs.

Ethics are beliefs that can be logically derived from core moral assumptions. For example, if we say that killing life is the ultimate moral evil and take that as our core belief we can follow a chain of logic to see which actions are justified, unjustified, and which (most in this case) require the addition of more assumptions.

If it's wrong to kill life means it's wrong to kill rats. But what if killing rats can save human lives in medical research. We now need a new value to decide the ethical calculus of how many rat lives are worth spending to save a human life (or in reverse, how many humans must die to justify taking a rat life).

In the case of your fur example taking this core assumption would lead inevitably to your position. Of course, given that I lack that core assumption means that we cannot follow the same paths of logic, as I do not hold all forms of life to be sacred.

As to how to resolve this and decide 'who is really right', it is impossible. There is no judge or arbitier who holds the right answer nor is there a pre-existing set of rules we can check our answers by. The only rules we have are those of our morality, which I discussed above.

This can lead to the misunderstanding that all beliefs are equal and need to be respected. All morals are not equal. Some are held by me and some are held by you. From my perspective your differing morals are by definition wrong, and vice versa.

Generally there are only three ways to resolve this (I count ignoring it as not resolving it):

1. You can enfold me in your culture to the point where I assimilate and adopt your values.

2. You can convice me that I am inconsistent in my morality through ethical logic, showing that my differing position on an issue does not follow from a shared higher level value causing me to realign my position with yours.

3. You can destroy me.

The third option is why we ended up right and the Nazi's ended up wrong.

The second option is why I switched form pro-life to pro-choice (my definition of what constiuted life was at odds with my stance on abortion and I had to re-align)

The first option generally happens with children more than adults, but it is notable in the immigrant population.

I hope that clears up what I see as the grounds for debate on this, but feel free to pick at a point I messed up on.

quixotecoyote

22nd April 2007, 12:08 AM

Tying this into the animal rights debate, a foundation of my morality is the value of human life. The life of other animals has no such primacy, so if you want to convice me they shouldn't be killed for my convience, you'll have to appeal to something other than the foundational moral of not killing animals without provocation.

Dustin Kesselberg

22nd April 2007, 12:13 AM

Morality is your code of right and wrong. It's your gut-check. It's the combination of what evolution has produced as hard-wired survival insticts and the conditioning of the society you grew up in. It varies from culture to culture as people growing up in different cultures are conditioned differently. As you grow up, your morality changes as you gain new experiences that change your perception and engage in ethical analysis of your beliefs.

Ethics are beliefs that can be logically derived from core moral assumptions. For example, if we say that killing life is the ultimate moral evil and take that as our core belief we can follow a chain of logic to see which actions are justified, unjustified, and which (most in this case) require the addition of more assumptions.

I don't believe your definitions are correct but I won't contest them for simplicity purposes unless they get in the way of my points.

If it's wrong to kill life means it's wrong to kill rats. But what if killing rats can save human lives in medical research. We now need a new value to decide the ethical calculus of how many rat lives are worth spending to save a human life (or in reverse, how many humans must die to justify taking a rat life).

In the case of your fur example taking this core assumption would lead inevitably to your position. Of course, given that I lack that core assumption means that we cannot follow the same paths of logic, as I do not hold all forms of life to be sacred.

It seems like you need to reevaluate your "core assumptions". Though I wouldn't call them assumptions.

As to how to resolve this and decide 'who is really right', it is impossible. There is no judge or arbitier who holds the right answer nor is there a pre-existing set of rules we can check our answers by. The only rules we have are those of our morality, which I discussed above.

Weren't you saying earlier that humans are the judges and arbiters?

This can lead to the misunderstanding that all beliefs are equal and need to be respected. All morals are not equal. Some are held by me and some are held by you. From my perspective your differing morals are by definition wrong, and vice versa.

What you're saying IS in effect that all moral beliefs are on the same level of validity. If there's no way to prove one moral belief over another then they would be all equally valid. Hitler's claim to being moral would be just as equally valid as Mahatma Gandhi's claim of being moral.

Generally there are only three ways to resolve this (I count ignoring it as not resolving it):

1. You can enfold me in your culture to the point where I assimilate and adopt your values.
2. You can convice me that I am inconsistent in my morality through ethical logic, showing that my differing position on an issue does not follow from a shared higher level value causing me to realign my position with yours.
3. You can destroy me.

I don't believe 1 or 3 are resolutions.

The third option is why we ended up right and the Nazi's ended up wrong.

First you say that destroying those who disagree is a "resolution" and now you say that it makes us "right"? So might makes right now?

The second option is why I switched form pro-life to pro-choice (my definition of what constiuted life was at odds with my stance on abortion and I had to re-align)

The first option generally happens with children more than adults, but it is notable in the immigrant population.

I hope that clears up what I see as the grounds for debate on this, but feel free to pick at a point I messed up on.

Do you believe that slaughtering animals simply for their fur should be allowed? Yes or No?

Dustin Kesselberg

22nd April 2007, 12:15 AM

quixotecoyote

22nd April 2007, 12:25 AM

Do you believe that slaughtering animals simply for their fur should be allowed? Yes or No?

Yes, but again I object to the use of predjudical language.

As for the rest, apparently I am still unclear.

Humans are the ultimate arbiters of morality because there is no one or nothing else to appeal to.

That means that yes, in Hitler's society his morals were considered just as good as Ghandi's morals were considered good in his own society. It is not possible to say objectively that Hitler's morals were equal, worse, or better. It is not that Hiter's morals were equal to Ghandi's. If we judge from our society's perspective Ghandi wins hands down. However if were are to judge from outside our society's perspective there can be *no comparison* at all.

Without a set of objective standards beyond those agreed upon by our society it is impossible to call one worse, better, or even equal to the other. The only thing that can be said about them is that they are different.

I obviously think Hitler was a monster and Ghandi was a great guy. Being aware of the lack of objective standards to compare cultural morality does not in any way negate either my own morality or my ability to make judgements based upon it.

It does mean that if a moral difference is too large to bridge through reasoned argument the only possibly way to settle a difference of belief is to tolerate the difference or use force until one side is crushed and the victor can control the conditons of emergent morality in the opposing population. This doesn't always have to be done militarily, but it is the easiest to illustrate.

So either we have to find some basic common ground on the animal rights debate that we can share as a moral basis to argue our points, or we have to ignore/tolerate each other because neither of us have the power to compel the other to believe.

quixotecoyote

22nd April 2007, 12:27 AM

No. You'll need to explain how your belief that slaughtering animals simply for your convenience is rational and right.

Human life is the primary moral value. Killing animals for convenience adds some value to human life. Therefore it is morally correct.

eta:I wasn't trying to put the burden of proof on you, I was just letting you know what it'd take to convince me. Also, it's late and I'm going to bed, but I'll be back tomorrow.

Dustin Kesselberg

22nd April 2007, 12:38 AM

Yes, but again I object to the use of predjudical language.

What language? "Slaughter"? Just stating the facts.

Humans are the ultimate arbiters of morality because there is no one or nothing else to appeal to.

How about the beings who our decisions affect?

That means that yes, in Hitler's society his morals were considered just as good as Ghandi's morals were considered good in his own society. It is not possible to say objectively that Hitler's morals were equal, worse, or better. It is not that Hiter's morals were equal to Ghandi's. If we judge from our society's perspective Ghandi wins hands down. However if were are to judge from outside our society's perspective there can be *no comparison* at all.

So someone living in Hitlers society who opposed him was wrong?

Without a set of objective standards beyond those agreed upon by our society it is impossible to call one worse, better, or even equal to the other. The only thing that can be said about them is that they are different.

Since when do "objective" standards have anything to do with moral decisions? How about subjective standards? The standard being pain and suffering.

I obviously think Hitler was a monster and Ghandi was a great guy. Being aware of the lack of objective standards to compare cultural morality does not in any way negate either my own morality or my ability to make judgements based upon it.

If you're unable to EXPLAIN WHY Hitler was a monster and Ghandi a great guy, then you've got nothing.

It does mean that if a moral difference is too large to bridge through reasoned argument the only possibly way to settle a difference of belief is to tolerate the difference or use force until one side is crushed and the victor can control the conditons of emergent morality in the opposing population. This doesn't always have to be done militarily, but it is the easiest to illustrate.

The same could apply to any sort of argument be it subjective or objective. Religion for example.

So either we have to find some basic common ground on the animal rights debate that we can share as a moral basis to argue our points, or we have to ignore/tolerate each other because neither of us have the power to compel the other to believe.

I'd accept a total ban on all fur items.

Human life is the primary moral value. Killing animals for convenience adds some value to human life. Therefore it is morally correct.

What makes humans so special? You've failed to establish this. You've asserted that you believe humans are somehow "super special" and should be able to slaughter any other species for their own convenience but you've failed to establish this.

Scientifically speaking there is NOTHING specifically special about humans apart from their intelligence. Take away their intelligence and they're just hairless apes. Humans are the most intelligent animals. However this in no way means they should have the right to exploit any animal for their pure convenience. This simply means they should 1. Have more responsibility in making moral decisions and 2. Should be afforded more weight of importance due to their intelligence (ability to appreciate treatment). The fact that they are most intelligent in no way negates the intelligence of the other species of animals. They also deserve importance given their intelligence and ability to appreciate how we treat them.

SimonD

22nd April 2007, 12:43 AM

Humans are animals. However there is a difference between a human needlessly killing another animal and some animal killing a human. Humans are more intelligent and can make more complex moral judgments than any other animals. This means they have more responsibility to do so. The same reasoning applies towards mentally ill criminals. If a mentally ill person commits a crime and clearly doesn't know the difference between right and wrong, then we don't hold that person to the same standards as someone else..

I'm sure you have seen a killer whale play with a baby seal. Or young lions playing with a calf before finally killing it. Do you find this immoral?

Humans have entire world wars to answer for. Better intelligence does not make for better moral judgement

The argument I am making is that humans shouldn't kill another animal unless the need to do so is justifiable.

A new fur coat isn't justifiable. Sorry. Do you really believe it is?.

As long as animal is farmed and not taken out of the wild, not really.

I do have a problem with someone hunting a pather (for example) in the wild and taking just the fur for fashion. If however, there was a farm that 'grew' panthers for this purpose, I would have no problem with it.

The impact of cotton on the land is minimal.

Depends what country you live in.

Cotton is natural as well.
So what if polyester is oil based?.

The fact that "fur is natural" is irrelevant. The means of producing it requires killing living sentient beings..

I point that I am making is that all industry has some impact on the land.

Killing Jews was immoral then and it's immoral now.

I agree

The fact that the Nazi's thought it was moral is irrelevant..

Wrong (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)-1 a : an injurious, unfair, or unjust act : action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause.

The laws prohibiting marijuana use are established as being injurious, unfair and unjust. Which inflict harm without due provocation.

Not to the Nazis.

Again, who decides what is moral?

I think I got some of what you said out of order - it was not an attempt to misquote you

Dustin Kesselberg

22nd April 2007, 12:54 AM

I'm sure you have seen a killer whale play with a baby seal. Or young lions playing with a calf before finally killing it. Do you find this immoral?

I've been over this in previous threads.

I do consider it immoral. Would I allow it to occur if I were raising the lions myself? No. Would I punish the lions for doing it? No. The lions aren't intelligent enough to know that what they are doing is wrong.

Humans have entire world wars to answer for. Better intelligence does not make for better moral judgement

Sure it does. Dumb people tend to commit more crimes. Less educated people tend to commit more crimes on average. Education is even used as a deterrent to crimes.

As long as animal is farmed and not taken out of the wild, not really.

Well you're quite delusional. Humans have no need for fur coats. It's simply an item they like to have. They could easily buy cotton or polyester coats. Killing animals for the shallow desires of humans is unjustifiable.

I do have a problem with someone hunting a pather (for example) in the wild and taking just the fur for fashion. If however, there was a farm that 'grew' panthers for this purpose, I would have no problem with it.

How about a farm that grew humans and harvested them for leather? Would you have a problem with that? If so, Why? Because humans are more intelligence? Then why cutoff at humans?

Or do you believe that somehow Humans are just "magically" more important? :rolleyes:

Depends what country you live in.

No. It depends on how you grow it.

I point that I am making is that all industry has some impact on the land.

It can be minimized. However in order to get fur you need to kill the animal. Killing an animal for the shallow selfish desires of humans is wrong.

I agree

Then you need to agree that killing animals for fur is wrong. If you don't, you're being inconsistent.

Not to the Nazis.

Again, who decides what is moral?

I think I got some of what you said out of order - it was not an attempt to misquote you

Reason decides what is moral.

Dustin Kesselberg

22nd April 2007, 01:17 AM

Here are the facts. The only thing that puts Humans at a higher level of moral value from other animals is their intelligence, thus their ability to appreciate moral or immoral treatment. This is all there is. Humans have no magical quality that makes them more important than other animal species. The only measurable thing they have is their intelligence. However other animal species also have intelligence. Other animal species also feel sense pain and are able to suffer. This means that they must be afforded moral rights as well, if humans are to be afforded moral rights.

The moral rights of other animal species won't be equal to humans simply because they aren't equal to humans in their ability to appreciate treatment of them. They can't appreciate a right to vote so they shouldn't get such. Humans should. Each species should be afforded moral rights corresponding with their intelligence. This is the only non-arbitrary and rational measure for moral treatment. That's all there is. Any other ascriptions to humans of some "superiority" above other animals or disenfranchising other animals of their basic rights isn't rational. The sole rubric for human moral treatment is also shared by other animal species.

Claims that somehow humans deserve everything and the interests of all other species should be ignored is simply ignorant chauvinism. Baseless.

This means that the amount of harm caused by killing an animal is much more severe than the harm caused by someone not getting a fur coat, which they could replace with a cotton or polyester coat or other fabric. The amount suffering caused from killing animals for their fur is compared to the potential suffering caused by someone not getting a fur coat is laughable. Anyone who really believes that getting a fur coat is more important than the lives of several animals needs to seriously re-evaluate their beliefs.

fuelair

22nd April 2007, 07:35 AM

Vandalizing property and slander are more harmful than killing thousands of animals simply for their fur?

YES! For one thing, the first are illegal, the second isn't. More important, though, before the first started I was leaning much more to your side - the actions of the PETA (and the other rectums) slime pushed me way over this way. (My philosophy is anything supported by scum like that - I feel the same about the active anti-abortionists - is, by default, wrong.)

Abdul Alhazred

22nd April 2007, 08:19 AM

Most "animal rights" types are not criminals, but they are still ideological anti-humans.

If you ask what "right" we have to be what nature made us or what is "special" about being human, you have repudiated your species.

It is a movement that must be marginalized as insane and evil.

strathmeyer

22nd April 2007, 08:26 AM

Anyone who really believes that getting a fur coat is more important than the lives of several animals needs to seriously re-evaluate their beliefs.

Where am I going to get the ammo with which to re-evaluate this belief? You're post doesn't contain enough inane rambling!

Katana

22nd April 2007, 09:09 AM

BPSCG

22nd April 2007, 10:38 AM

I think the furrier might have a civil cause of action under the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act #Where_RICO_laws_might_be_applied):
Under RICO, a person or group who commits any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period and, in the opinion of the United States Attorney bringing the case, has committed those crimes with similar purpose or results can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and/or sentenced to 20 years in prison. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity."

When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO, he has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to prevent the transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a performance bond. This provision was placed in the law because the owners of Mafia-related shell corporations often absconded with the assets. An injunction and/or performance bond ensures that there is something to seize in the event of a guilty verdict.

There is also a provision for private parties to sue. A "person damaged in his business or property" can sue one or more "racketeers." There must also be an "enterprise." The defendant(s) are not the enterprise, in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same. There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise. This lawsuit, like all Federal civil lawsuits, can take place in either Federal or State court.

Both the federal and civil components allow for triple damages.

Abdul Alhazred

22nd April 2007, 12:11 PM

In what way are they "anti-human"?

Perhaps "anti-humanist" would be more accurate.

Having a morality where human existence is subordinate to ... something or other.

Also, listen to some of the rhetoric about how "unethical" humans are. It's original sin without redemption.

It's not about being kind to animals. We've had anti-cruelty laws long before their noisome movement got going.

They are racists against the human race, which they deceptively frame in the language of political movements.

Lonewulf

22nd April 2007, 12:17 PM

Abdul Alhazred

22nd April 2007, 02:30 PM

A very mild rhetorical flourish, Lonewulf.

You're obviously not one of THEM. http://www.skepticforum.com/images/smiles/notsure.gif

Lonewulf

22nd April 2007, 03:20 PM

A very mild rhetorical flourish, Lonewulf.

You're obviously not one of THEM.

I advocate animal rights to a certain degree. I don't see any reason why we should treat animals any more harshly than we need to.

I don't advocate eco-terrorism, and I don't really advocate extremes (from my POV), but I do try to predict into the far future some directions we can take.

Ysidro

22nd April 2007, 04:06 PM

Well, I'd say this thread was a waste but at least I learned lions are immoral!

What I really want to know is: if an anti-human and a human meet do the mutually annihilate each other?

Dustin Kesselberg

22nd April 2007, 05:42 PM

YES! For one thing, the first are illegal, the second isn't. More important, though, before the first started I was leaning much more to your side - the actions of the PETA (and the other rectums) slime pushed me way over this way. (My philosophy is anything supported by scum like that - I feel the same about the active anti-abortionists - is, by default, wrong.)

Well fortunately the law doesn't decide what is harmful and what isn't.

Dustin Kesselberg

22nd April 2007, 05:43 PM

Dustin Kesselberg

22nd April 2007, 05:45 PM

Perhaps "anti-humanist" would be more accurate.

Having a morality where human existence is subordinate to ... something or other.

Also, listen to some of the rhetoric about how "unethical" humans are. It's original sin without redemption.

It's not about being kind to animals. We've had anti-cruelty laws long before their noisome movement got going.

They are racists against the human race, which they deceptively frame in the language of political movements.

You're generalizing them all into the nuts who firebomb dog shelters and release the dogs into the wild. That's like calling all Christians abortion clinic bombers or all atheists communists. It doesn't make sense. Belief that other species deserve rights doesn't mean you believe humans don't deserve more rights or somehow "human existence is subordinate" as you put it.

Lonewulf

22nd April 2007, 06:31 PM

YES! For one thing, the first are illegal, the second isn't. More important, though, before the first started I was leaning much more to your side - the actions of the PETA (and the other rectums) slime pushed me way over this way. (My philosophy is anything supported by scum like that - I feel the same about the active anti-abortionists - is, by default, wrong.)

Is, by default, wrong?

This is scary logic you're using. A few bad apples, and you assume that a viewpoint is automatically wrong? And then you pushed yourself to the other extreme?

Wow.

That isn't healthy, Fuelair.

fuelair

23rd April 2007, 05:00 AM

Is, by default, wrong?

This is scary logic you're using. A few bad apples, and you assume that a viewpoint is automatically wrong? And then you pushed yourself to the other extreme?

Wow.

That isn't healthy, Fuelair.

I will remake here a point I may have been unclear about in other posts - I (and I am being very polite in my phrasing) loathe terrorists and anyone who supports them and with no further explanation would happily back up that loathing. It includes, however, distancing myself from those groups and any of their functions possible - since any support given eventually provides support for their terrorist elements. If you ever see me (and if I do it you won't) seeming to provide support for such, you may freely assume it is to bring the others out for whatever purpose I might have. My health is fine, do not fear for it.

Lonewulf

23rd April 2007, 05:03 AM

I will remake here a point I may have been unclear about in other posts - I (and I am being very polite in my phrasing) loathe terrorists and anyone who supports them and with no further explanation would happily back up that loathing. It includes, however, distancing myself from those groups and any of their functions possible - since any support given eventually provides support for their terrorist elements. If you ever see me (and if I do it you won't) seeming to provide support for such, you may freely assume it is to bring the others out for whatever purpose I might have. My health is fine, do not fear for it.

You're distancing yourself from animal rights groups because some animal rights groups commit terrorism... to the point where you head towards the other extreme. Whereas, beforehand, you actually saw that they had a point.

:rolleyes:

Whatever you think is logical, man. :rolleyes:

fuelair

23rd April 2007, 08:29 AM

You're distancing yourself from animal rights groups because some animal rights groups commit terrorism... to the point where you head towards the other extreme. Whereas, beforehand, you actually saw that they had a point.

:rolleyes:

Whatever you think is logical, man. :rolleyes:
Uh, to be exact, I said I was more headed in that direction, I did not say I saw the animal rights groups as having a point. There is a distinction there (plus I edited to add a point - while you were answering). It is not a minor one.

Lonewulf

23rd April 2007, 08:32 AM

Uh, to be exact, I said I was more headed in that direction, I did not say I saw the animal rights groups as having a point. There is a distinction there (plus I edited to add a point - while you were answering). It is not a minor one.

You were headed in that direction, but saw no point to advocate animal rights?

I'm not sure I get what you're saying. You were heading in the direction of caring about the treatment of animals, then headed away because of terrorists, but saw no point in caring about animal warfare?*

I'm sorry, could you further clarify what you're stating? I'm a bit lost.

*Misspelled "Welfare" as "Warfare". Leaving in the mistake as it makes the post funny. :D

Ocelot

23rd April 2007, 09:07 AM

It's funny how animal rights activists targetting the use of animal skins for fashion pick on fur rather than leather. Is it perhaps because middle aged ladies are easier targets than bikers?

Lonewulf

23rd April 2007, 09:39 AM

It's funny how animal rights activists targetting the use of animal skins for fashion pick on fur rather than leather. Is it perhaps because middle aged ladies are easier targets than bikers?

I dunno. Why did people judge buffalo hunters so harshly? Oh, wait! That's right! No one used the buffalo meat, letting the corpses rot in the sun. It was a waste.

Most "fur animals", such as foxes, minks and the like, are not used for anything else but fur. Leather, on the other paw, comes from cows and other such animals that are used for their meat.

fuelair

23rd April 2007, 10:25 AM

I dunno. Why did people judge buffalo hunters so harshly? Oh, wait! That's right! No one used the buffalo meat, letting the corpses rot in the sun. It was a waste.

Most "fur animals", such as foxes, minks and the like, are not used for anything else but fur. Leather, on the other paw, comes from cows and other such animals that are used for their meat.Actually, buffalo meat was used by lots of people - just that way more people used the hides only. Which, of course, annoyed the Indians a bit much - since they used both - to the extent that the near eradication of the buffalo wrecked part of the Indian economic/agricultural system.

Dustin Kesselberg

23rd April 2007, 09:09 PM

Actually, buffalo meat was used by lots of people - just that way more people used the hides only. Which, of course, annoyed the Indians a bit much - since they used both - to the extent that the near eradication of the buffalo wrecked part of the Indian economic/agricultural system.

The natives used nearly every part of the buffalo when they killed them. Whites would ride in trains and simply shoot buffalo as they drove by and leave the bodies to rot.

http://wanderling.tripod.com/buffalo-skulls.jpg

Those are all buffalo skulls.

Sir Robin Goodfellow

23rd April 2007, 11:44 PM

Schneibster

23rd April 2007, 11:48 PM

Actually, buffalo meat was used by lots of people - just that way more people used the hides only. Which, of course, annoyed the Indians a bit much - since they used both - to the extent that the near eradication of the buffalo wrecked part of the Indian economic/agricultural system.Buffalo skins were subject to a bounty, specifically to kill off the buffalo (bison) and deny the Lakota and others their nomadic access to food to keep them on reservations. It's a matter of public record, beyond debate. If you're going to lie about something, at least try to make it something someone can't look up in the Congressional Record and prove you wrong.

Schneibster

23rd April 2007, 11:52 PM

The hide hunters will do more in the next few years to settle the vexed Indian question than the entire regular army has done in the last 30 years. For the sake of a lasting peace, let them kill, skin, and sell until the buffaloes are exterminated. Then the prairies can be covered with the speckled cattle and the festive cowboy, who follows the hunter as the forerunner of civilization.

General Philip Sheridan
U.S. Army

Just in case you had any questions.

Dustin Kesselberg

24th April 2007, 12:07 AM

Here's a moral conundrum that I'll put to Dustin to get his take on the issue.

I work with a farmer, Mr Z. Years back, when his daughters were little, he and his family kept rabbits as pets, outside, in a hutch. One morning, he came outside to find that all the pet rabbits were dead, torn up, strewn around the yard. Two dogs were there, strays, most likely, and they growled and barked at him. He went in the house, got a rifle, came out and shot one dog dead. The other ran. He got in his vehicle and chased it for a while, and when he had it in an area where it was safe to shoot, he parked, got out, and took aim. The dog ran toward him, growling, at full speed. Startled, and not wanting to miss, Mr.Z jumped back into the cab of his half-ton. The dog jumped into the box of his truck, and sat down, snarling, waiting for a chance to strike. Mr. Z opened the window and quickly blew the dog's head off.

Is Mr Z. immoral? Were the dogs immoral? Why or why not? What would you have done?

If this is a serious question,

The dogs actions were wrong however the dogs were not "Immoral". They aren't intelligent enough to make moral decisions such as that and can't be blamed for making the wrong decision. What they did was wrong but they had no way of knowing it was wrong. So they can't be blamed.

Mr. Z was wrong for shooting the dogs. He should of contacted the local animal control to come and get the dogs. Killing them for doing something they didn't know was wrong would of been like executing a mentally ill person who doesn't know right from wrong. Unless the dogs were clearly aggressive towards humans, there was no immediate need to kill them. The only reason the one dog went after Mr.Z seemed to be due to the fact he had was trying to kill it.

However given this hypothetical situation, It's based purely on what you said. If the dogs were aggressive towards Mr.Z and this occurred in a time prior to animal control, then he would of had no choice but to shoot the dogs. However chasing the one dog down to shoot it doesn't make any sense at all since it was no longer an immediate threat to him.

Lonewulf

24th April 2007, 12:17 AM

Mr. Z was wrong for shooting the dogs. He should of contacted the local animal control to come and get the dogs. Killing them for doing something they didn't know was wrong would of been like executing a mentally ill person who doesn't know right from wrong. Unless the dogs were clearly aggressive towards humans, there was no immediate need to kill them. The only reason the one dog went after Mr.Z seemed to be due to the fact he had was trying to kill it.

From the sounds of the scenario, the dogs could very well have been aggressive towards humans. But what if animal control services, or any animal-based services, were too far away, and a solution needed to be reached within the short term?

Believe me, Dustin, I know where you're coming from. I had a debate with a friend over this very same topic (and he really did have a father that shot a dog that was proving to be a threat to him and his family), and I took a stance much like yours. That was a few years ago, and as I've grown up a bit more, my perception has changed; it would be nice to live in a nice idealistic world where Animal Control isn't so incredibly under-funded, and it would be nice if there were Animal Control services that were right next door, but that's just not the case.

However given this hypothetical situation, It's based purely on what you said. If the dogs were aggressive towards Mr.Z and this occurred in a time prior to animal control, then he would of had no choice but to shoot the dogs. However chasing the one dog down to shoot it doesn't make any sense at all since it was no longer an immediate threat to him.

What if there was a chance the dogs might come back to wreak more havoc?

(I ask this latter question because it doesn't seem that unlikely to me... I'm willing to be shown otherwise).

Dustin Kesselberg

24th April 2007, 12:50 AM

From the sounds of the scenario, the dogs could very well have been aggressive towards humans. But what if animal control services, or any animal-based services, were too far away, and a solution needed to be reached within the short term?

Believe me, Dustin, I know where you're coming from. I had a debate with a friend over this very same topic (and he really did have a father that shot a dog that was proving to be a threat to him and his family), and I took a stance much like yours. That was a few years ago, and as I've grown up a bit more, my perception has changed; it would be nice to live in a nice idealistic world where Animal Control isn't so incredibly under-funded, and it would be nice if there were Animal Control services that were right next door, but that's just not the case.

It depends on location, country, area, etc.

What if there was a chance the dogs might come back to wreak more havoc?

(I ask this latter question because it doesn't seem that unlikely to me... I'm willing to be shown otherwise).

If there was such a chance, and the man lives in an area or time where Animal Control could not be used, then he would probably be justified in shooting the dogs.

However you have to remember, the dogs didn't know what they were doing was wrong. One should not be so apt to kill them for that. Especially when there is no sign they are violent towards humans. My dogs chase squirrels all around and are pretty aggressive towards the, however they aren't towards humans.

Lonewulf

24th April 2007, 12:54 AM

It depends on location, country, area, etc.

If there was such a chance, and the man lives in an area or time where Animal Control could not be used, then he would probably be justified in shooting the dogs.

However you have to remember, the dogs didn't know what they were doing was wrong. One should not be so apt to kill them for that. Especially when there is no sign they are violent towards humans. My dogs chase squirrels all around and are pretty aggressive towards the, however they aren't towards humans.

Then, on this subject at the least, we agree.

Sir Robin Goodfellow

24th April 2007, 06:51 AM

If this is a serious question,

The dogs actions were wrong however the dogs were not "Immoral". They aren't intelligent enough to make moral decisions such as that and can't be blamed for making the wrong decision. What they did was wrong but they had no way of knowing it was wrong. So they can't be blamed.

Mr. Z was wrong for shooting the dogs. He should of contacted the local animal control to come and get the dogs. Killing them for doing something they didn't know was wrong would of been like executing a mentally ill person who doesn't know right from wrong. Unless the dogs were clearly aggressive towards humans, there was no immediate need to kill them. The only reason the one dog went after Mr.Z seemed to be due to the fact he had was trying to kill it.

However given this hypothetical situation, It's based purely on what you said. If the dogs were aggressive towards Mr.Z and this occurred in a time prior to animal control, then he would of had no choice but to shoot the dogs. However chasing the one dog down to shoot it doesn't make any sense at all since it was no longer an immediate threat to him.

Actually, it's not a hypothetical situation. It did happen, and it was not the first time Mr. Z shot a stray dog that was on his property. Further, around here, animal control officers do not go out to people's farms. The only person you could call would in theory be the conservation officer, and they usually deal only with protected wildlife, not vermin. If you called them they would likely ask why you did not shoot the animals yourself. If by chance you didn't have access to firearms, then I guess you would probably call the RCMP. And you can guess what they would do if they tracked down the dogs. All Mr Z. did was cut out the middle man.

As to why he killed them, well, they found an area where there was ready food that couldn't run away. It's not unreasonable to think they might return for another meal. Put yourself in his shoes. You've got three kids under ten playing in your yard.

Ocelot

24th April 2007, 07:20 AM

As to why he killed them, well, they found an area where there was ready food that couldn't run away. It's not unreasonable to think they might return for another meal. Put yourself in his shoes. You've got three kids under ten playing in your yard.

Well absolutely. Kids like that can eat you out of house and home. These days they don't even ask before raiding the fridge. I say shoot all three. I know some would advocate just shooting one of them to scare the other two off but barely a week goes by without another story hitting our newsstands where some child having witnessed a horrific family tragedy, runs away to be raised by wild animals and returns as a costumed vigilante with preternatural powers to wreak his revenge on the perpetrator. Safer in the long run to shoot all three.

Darth Rotor

24th April 2007, 07:29 AM

We have been hunting animals for 1000's of years to provide clothing for ourselves. The only problem I have, is when the rest of the animal is not used. This is very wasteful.
Well said.
While I agree killing the Jews was wrong, if Hitler had won the war we would be saying what a great guy he was.
Was Hitler's problem that not all of the Jew was used, for food, pelts for clothing, etc, a la the plains buffalo? Was the problem that the hunting was not sporting? :confused: Oh, wait, his problem was the he took on most of the world, and tried to kill all of the Jews, all at the same time. :p

Not seeing how "great guy" would follow if his armies had been more successful. Had they been, we would "spracht Deutsch" and perhaps not get as many good jokes out per unit of prose.
Popular decision making by politicans is a daily event
As is unpopular decision making: "popularity" depends on which side of an issue you stand. ;)

DR

fuelair

24th April 2007, 10:32 AM

Buffalo skins were subject to a bounty, specifically to kill off the buffalo (bison) and deny the Lakota and others their nomadic access to food to keep them on reservations. It's a matter of public record, beyond debate. If you're going to lie about something, at least try to make it something someone can't look up in the Congressional Record and prove you wrong.

do you always assume that a person who makes an error is a liar?
If so, you are a rule8ing incompetant fool. I have never heard of that point - though I will accept you may be right. I am repeating what I have seen in any number of sources. In all fairness, I do not actually care enough about the point to do major research on it.

fuelair

24th April 2007, 10:34 AM

Ocelot

25th April 2007, 04:32 AM

Why as a liar would I have any questions?

Wait! If you're a liar then your statement that you're a liar is a lie, so that means you're telling the truth. Which means that you are in fact a liar, but that means that when you say you're a liar that's also a lie. Which means that you're telling the truth. Oooh. It's at times like these that I'm glad I'm not one of Harry Mudd's androids

fuelair

25th April 2007, 04:48 AM

Star Trek definitely did some dumb things to game evil computers!

Dustin Kesselberg

25th April 2007, 06:51 AM

Actually, it's not a hypothetical situation. It did happen, and it was not the first time Mr. Z shot a stray dog that was on his property. Further, around here, animal control officers do not go out to people's farms. The only person you could call would in theory be the conservation officer, and they usually deal only with protected wildlife, not vermin. If you called them they would likely ask why you did not shoot the animals yourself. If by chance you didn't have access to firearms, then I guess you would probably call the RCMP. And you can guess what they would do if they tracked down the dogs. All Mr Z. did was cut out the middle man.

As to why he killed them, well, they found an area where there was ready food that couldn't run away. It's not unreasonable to think they might return for another meal. Put yourself in his shoes. You've got three kids under ten playing in your yard.

In the U.S. Animal control goes even to isolated areas. I know, I live in one. It sounds like the farmer was just too lazy to deal with animal control. Animal control don't always put them to sleep. They check them for disease and then put them up for adoption. There is at least a chance they will survive.

What country does this person live in? Australia? Canada maybe? Both have animal control people who go into isolated areas even if it isn't for wildlife.

SimonD

25th April 2007, 11:11 PM

Dustin and Darth - I won't be able to answer your questions for a couple of days - to busy at the moment to write up anything more then a few lines. Talk to you soon

Sir Robin Goodfellow

26th April 2007, 06:44 AM

In the U.S. Animal control goes even to isolated areas. I know, I live in one. It sounds like the farmer was just too lazy to deal with animal control. Animal control don't always put them to sleep. They check them for disease and then put them up for adoption. There is at least a chance they will survive.

What country does this person live in? Australia? Canada maybe? Both have animal control people who go into isolated areas even if it isn't for wildlife.

Canada. And the conservation officer, or as you guys call them, game wardens, do go out to rural areas, of course. You would call them if you had a moose in your yard. If you called them about aggressive dogs, or badgers, or skunks, or any other vermin, they might respond, but it would take a long time. The expectation around here is that a risky animal is killed. That's why pretty much every farmer has a rifle or shotgun. You might be upset to know how gophers are dealt with, and they are not even violent. The point is that the dogs were potentially a threat to human safety, and needed to be dealt with quickly.

As an example, in the news recently, a woman was jogging in a rural area, and was severely mauled by two roaming dogs. A passing RCMP officer intervened, but the dogs ran away. Two days later, the woman's husband recognised the animals and called the police, who shot the dogs. Who knows what tragedy could have occurred in those two days?

I can try to find a link for you, if you'd like to learn more about the incident.

Perhaps I'll clarify my own position. I find the practice of fur-farming, or trophy hunting, to be distasteful. It seems wasteful to me. However, I realise that sometimes, for practical reasons, animals, including humans, must be killed. Generally, the rule of thumb I would use is necessity. I find nothing wrong with using animals for food, or killing them if it seems likely that they present a threat to people, or keeping them for companionship, or using them to perform work, as long as deliberate cruelty is avoided.

If put in the same situation as Mr.Z, I likely would have shot the dogs. In this case, I feel the possibilty of the animals returning and harming one of his young children was simply too great. In my opinion, waiting for someone in authority to deal with the problem is too risky.

I asked your opinion on this matter not to goad you into a fight, but simply to get your take on it. If my tone was a bit confrontational, I apologise.

Lonewulf

26th April 2007, 11:18 AM

Perhaps I'll clarify my own position. I find the practice of fur-farming, or trophy hunting, to be distasteful. It seems wasteful to me. However, I realise that sometimes, for practical reasons, animals, including humans, must be killed. Generally, the rule of thumb I would use is necessity. I find nothing wrong with using animals for food, or killing them if it seems likely that they present a threat to people, or keeping them for companionship, or using them to perform work, as long as deliberate cruelty is avoided.

Bolded mine.

I just want to note that the bolded has always been my argument and mindset on the issue.

If put in the same situation as Mr.Z, I likely would have shot the dogs. In this case, I feel the possibilty of the animals returning and harming one of his young children was simply too great. In my opinion, waiting for someone in authority to deal with the problem is too risky.

I don't know. It depends on the scenario. I wouldn't mind calling up the local animal control while holing up inside, to be honest; it depends on if anything is actually needed outdoors.

Mycroft

29th April 2007, 11:20 PM

The dogs actions were wrong however the dogs were not "Immoral". They aren't intelligent enough to make moral decisions such as that and can't be blamed for making the wrong decision. What they did was wrong but they had no way of knowing it was wrong. So they can't be blamed.

Realistically, if animal control had been called, the dogs would have been put down anyway. You can't adopt out pets that kill other animals.

I love dogs, have two myself, but them's the facts of life.

SimonD

1st May 2007, 01:39 AM

In was going to continue with this again, however I feel that it's been done to death.

Dustin - I'm sure we'll discuss this again at some stage as you seem to post a lot of threads about animals. Just remember, I really am just intrested in a good debate and not trading insults

Darth - till next time

Lonewulf

1st May 2007, 12:24 PM

Dustin - I'm sure we'll discuss this again at some stage as you seem to post a lot of threads about animals. Just remember, I really am just intrested in a good debate and not trading insults

I'm always willing to get into a debate. I may let my emotions get the better of me, and I apologize in advance; but I'm always willing to reasonably discuss a topic. It gets a bit tiring dealing with the likes of Thaiboxerken and Dr. Lao. Dustin is also hard to have a reasonable debate with most of the time.

mumblethrax

1st May 2007, 06:42 PM

I don't particularly want to revive this thread, but it seems to be lacking in relevant details (http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_112806_news_schumacher_terrorists.33a8771c.htm l). Be sure to notice the sign that humanitarian-of-the-year Schumacher posted in his store window. I assume he doesn't sincerely advocate torturing protesters to death, but was merely being provocative (notably, against the advice of both the mayor and the police department).

Intimidation and death threats are--of course--deplorable, and if the people who organized the protest engaged in or encouraged that kind of behavior, well, I hope he wins. But I'm not going to accept hearsay as evidence, particularly when Schumacher's conduct over the course of the whole unfortunate affair is best described as hysterical.

Needless to say, the characterization of people who recognize animal interests as "anti-human" or "anti-humanist" is laughable, particularly given that my own sympathy for animals derives from a broadly humanistic ethic. The term Abdul is struggling for is "anti-speciesist," but I suppose that interferes with his mad rhetorical stylinz.