From the LA Times blogs:
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals plans Wednesday to sue Sea World for allegedly violating the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution — which bans slavery — by keeping orcas at parks in San Diego and Orlando, Fla., organization officials said Tuesday.
The lawsuit, set to be filed in San Diego federal court, is considered the first of its kind and, if successful, would represent a large enhancement of the animal-rights movement. Part of the lawsuit asserts that it is illegal to artificially inseminate the females and then take away their babies.
Sea World officials dismissed the lawsuit as a publicity stunt. PETA routinely pickets the park on Mission Bay.
The lawsuit seeks the release of three orcas (also called killer whales) from San Diego and two at Orlando. “All five of these orcas were violently seized from the ocean and taken from their families as babies,” said PETA President Ingred Newkirk.
PETA officials note that the 13th Amendment prohibits slavery but does appear to limit the ban only to human beings. “Slavery is slavery,” said PETA general counsel Jeffrey Kerr.
Kasatka, Corky and Ulises are at Sea World San Diego, Tilikum and Katina at Orlando. Tilikum, a six-ton male, grabbed a trainer in February 2010 and dragged her to the bottom, where she drowned.
In a statement, Sea World said that extending constitutional rights to killer whales “is baseless and in many ways offensive” and that “there is no higher priority than the welfare of the animals entrusted to our care.”
My response: Are you effin’ kiddin’ me? (I didn’t use “effin’”– but you get the idea.)
I’m not a fan of keeping orcas or other cetaceans in captivity, but using the 13th amendment for this purpose is a dangerous precedent.
Allowing orcas to sue under those auspices would essentially create constitutional rights for animals without ever having a vote on it or passing any legislation.
Judicial activism happens all the time– on both sides. For example, it was reinterpretation of the 14th amendment, which gave full citizenship rights to African American men, that gave corporations full citizenship rights in the US Supreme Court Decision known as Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (1886).
But I’d be very much surprised if this particular case went anywhere.
My guess is the orca slavery suit will be thrown out.
But you never know for sure.
PETA, I’m sure, is just doing this for propaganda purposes.
But it’s terrible waste of our federal court system just so they can use it for publicity.
It also takes away from the possibility of having a ration discussion about orcas in captivity.
When you do stupid things for attention, no one is going to take your arguments seriously.
Hear that, Herman Cain?
Yes, release them! It worked so well for Keiko!
Sad… so very sad.
As Pai is sarcastically pointing out, I would like them to stop making them PERFORM, but having them in a zoo-like environment I am fine with, but releasing them all together most likely will kill them, as with Keiko, they haven’t built a tolerance to the bacteria and ways of the wild. But, yeah, PETA using the amendment to force them to release them… oh come on, seriously? No thank you, the dog laws they created are enough, I really don’t like them crawling around our government spreading their slime.
I really wish that the court would hit these PETA folk with a punative “Frivolous lawsuit” penalty that would dissuade them from this sort of nonsense. Orcas are NOT people. One should treat ANY living thing with some dignity and respect but the idea that it is only “humane” if one treats an animal with greater care than accorded to the average human being is absurd. The ORIGINAL “performance” training was to enrich the animals’ environments. Because it attracted interest, it morphed into “shows” — and thence into stupid publicity shows with trainers swimming with the orcas, skiing animals, etc. But the original was simply “to manage them you have to provide some training and it gives the animals something to do” — in that respect, training is a good thing, and there is no reason why these can’t be public attractions. If training and exhibiting is inherently “wrong” then what are we doing with dressage horses and retriever trials for dogs? The trick is to insist that what training and “shows” that are done are commesurate with safety of the animals and the people involved. If Orcas are “people”, can Tillcum be charged with murder? After all, if a person, even if “enslaved” had killed as he did that would be the charge. How about if a wild orca kills a dolphin? Do we send out the coast guard to arrest them? Animals are NOT people. They don’t have our “rights” and they also don’t have our responsibilities.
Yes, but, animals don’t suffer by not having intense stimulation. A dog won’t go crazy because he doesn’t do retriever trials or basic obedience, nor will a horse, or orca. My dog is just fine chewing on a bone, trying to get stuff out of his kong toy, etc. If humans are isolated enough, they are in awe of toys. Of course though, if you stick any animal into a box, they will go crazy, quite honestly I don’t think training would improve that stir crazy. Therefore, the “environmental enrichment” isn’t necessary. I’m sure Orca’s would enjoy playing with a beach ball, having an environment similar to the ocean (meaning plants, coral, other sea life, etc, it wouldn’t be that hard to do) that is also of decent size and depth, and doing training for fun, not for human entertainment. Judging by what else I’m seeing, no metal bars or gates (but the glass/plastic like material that they already use would work, can’t remember the name of it), I think the dorsal collapse would be fixed with much larger tanks, that would most likely make training much more enjoyable too as the orca would not have to worry about crashing into the wall and would have more room to “stretch its fins” so to speak. That would most likely fix aggression towards the other orcas too, but that is no guarantee. But, still, training isn’t necessary, space is.
I wouldn’t necessarily agree with that. I don’t have a lot of personal knowledge of whales, so I can’t say what they might need. But many dogs WILL “go crazy” without intense stimulation. They need things to do. Not necessarily specific things such as obedience or retriever trials, but something that stretches them mentally and physically.
I have Staffordshire Bull Terriers. The first one I got I adopted as an adult. I was his 4th home. I couldn’t figure out why 3 people gave up such a fabulous dog, until I thought about it and realized that they were people that just wanted a companion dog, and weren’t prepared for a dog that was so busy. He was a perfectly placid and easy to live with dog, as long as he got routine training and exercise. In my home, competing in obedience, agility, and weight pull, he thrived. But if I slacked off, he’d start tail chasing, and obsessing over spots of light.
And there are breeds that are way more intense than my SBTs. Yes, there are breeds, and individual dogs, who don’t require a lot as long as their basic needs are met. But I don’t think they are in the majority.
>>>>>>>>Animals are NOT people. They don’t have our “rights” and they also don’t have our responsibilities>>>>>>>>>>>
It’s a pity but we only have our human view to judge what’s best for our fellow creatures on the earth. We can only use the human terms. That’ not bad, we do it all the time. And, I don’t think our needs and other creatures’ needs differ that much from each other, after all. At least, in the base, no one diserves to be jailed.
I’m not suprized that case is now happening. It’s not the first case at all. I recall there was a case where a dog was sued having bitten a lord, in England in the early 1800s. The dog won the case.
Jailed animals, like pets, are property. It’s about making profit by other creatures life & work, by ignoring their own natural needs to decide for themselves. If that’s not slavery, then tell me what it is?
Also, the tragedy of slavery is the same for all the animals. When you free a slave, he may not want to leave – or can’t survive in the new environment.
Corporations are not people, but they are considered persons and have legal standing in a court of law. Why shouldn’t highly intelligent nonhumans, like orcas, have less legal standing than a multi-billion dollar corporation?
I find it humorous to compare domestic horses doing dressage and dogs doing retriever work to highly complex, social migratory species, like Orca, being held in stunted social groups in miniature pools. While I may have personal opinions on how domestic animals are treated, the idea that we can provide anything remotely similar to the habitat and social structure of wild orca in a captive setting is just ludicrous. Orca belong in the wild, period, not doing dumb tricks for a paying audience.
Having legal standing does not mean an animal need be charged with murder or we need to have a special court of law presided over by walruses and penguins. We have created a litany of laws with very specific language to define circumstance and implementation – I am certain we are smart enough to grant legal standing to certain nonhumans. And all that can mean, by the way, is that they and their interests can be represented by a human lawyer. It does not need mean we should stupidly charge an orca with murder for killing a dolphin…that is just laughable, really.
Do you realize the ramification for extending human rights to non-humans? Surely?
We can’t even respect our own citizens’ political rights, let alone everything else.
Yeh, seems we can’t guarantee our own citizens’ or our immigrants’ rights. But nor our animals either.
But see, these aren’t necessarily logically connected together.
Morally, they may be, but not logically. Moral is always cultural- shaded, logic not.
If one feels to stand for the animal rights – not on the human rights’ side, it may be very well justified as well. The logic in it goes like this, one sees he wants to stand on the side of the weak AND he sees that animals are generally the week – not the human species.
Scientifically, we have lots of evidence for that.
I don’t think corporations should have legal standings as people either. Just because we have a precedent of stupid decisions, doesn’t mean we have to continue the trend.
you make no sense, go and watch a documentary or read a book and certainly think before speaking….´what if a wild orca kills a dolphin?´are you being serious. Animals in the wild behave naturally to survive, the instincts that they have to survive don´t switch off suddenly just because humans want to control them and make them perform tricks in captivity. You clearly have no basic knowledge about animals because you are just spitting out arguments, well you know what, atleast PETA is trying to preserve this world and save the animals so that our children´s children´s children can actually see a tiger, before they are gone. All cruelty against animals is horrible and PETA works hard to eliminate all, I don´t really see the purpose of anything you´ve said rather than just to be a negative so and so, when if you had have a brain cell to rub together you´d see that it all makes a lot of sense!
PETA is actually an organization where people with histrionic personality disorder get together and go through all their routines to get attention for themselves. I don’t think it solves any problems, other than causing lots of problems for the people who actually can make things better.
I am not in favor of keeping orcas in captivity. You can find that sentiments in several posts. Peggy disagrees, of course.
It does massive amount to raise awareness, change people´s ideas about what they eat and how to support people who are doing right by the animals, and if people are going to be so negative and not help then they are going to get desperate, can you imagine being so passionate about something and people being negative because they have to be, rather than praising or supporting when it must be so painful to know that when you waste time, how many animals are in trouble because you haven´t changed a law. If you care about something that much, I can understand but I think humans will only learn when that animal is gone. I mean, we´re so stupid to try and bring back the mammoth…. most species of whales and dolphins are on that list
I’m for saving the whales.
I’m for not keeping them in captivity.
But I’m not in favor of veganism or banning hunting. Not all people can have healthy lifestyles without animal products. Further, banning hunting means that we have no effective population controls over certain wild animals, which were historically controlled by large predators, which were persecuted and extirpated and probably cannot return to their former levels.
Perhaps they will be able to see a tiger, but they won’t be able to have a pet dog, or cat, or any pet animals at all. Nice.
Well of course, granting constitutional rights to all animals is what they are after. I’m sure they know they won’t be successful with this, but that is the goal they have been aspiring to all along. If they shove it at people often enough, eventually it won’t sound so crazy.
but, animals don’t suffer by not having intense stimulation–what is “intense stimulation”? Jump up to catch a fish on a cue? But that is pretty much what dolphins and orcas do in the wild — they jump and leap in coordinated ways to catch fish. One of the reasons zoo animals were said to “pace” and be mentally neurotic was a “lack of stimulation” — just having a beach ball to play with is NOT enough. In the best zoos and preserves, the animals must “DO” something to earn their dinners, even if it is artifiical. Moreover, in order to provide safe veterinary care, animals are often trained to stand still or to position themselves in slings, gates, etc. And again, there is no reason why some glitter and other “glitz” can’t be added and the whole presented to the public — as long as it is done with a view for safety of the animal and the people involved (that’s where the swimming with the orca was so stupid. That is never safe). As for aggression against other orcas or dolphins –well, no. Studies in the wild show that Orcas and especially dolphins are not sweetness and light — they happily kill other dolphins (or in the case of Orcas, they kill whales, dolphins and seals among other animals) Wild dolphins will often drown other dolphins. It has nothing to do with confinement although confinement means the victim can’t get away. Confining an animal and training it for human use is NOT slavery, it is domestication. And domestication has more often led to a mutually beneficial relationship than harm. Domestic animals are the least likely to become extinct. The California Condor is an excellent example of benefit of confinement, even “training” (using puppets to feet the chicks, etc) of an animal that otherwise would be now extinct. The panda is another that may only survive with human aid. The “Sea Worlds” have probably done more to rescue, rehabilitate and learn about sea animals than any other method used to date.
but in the wild, they have the option to escape from an attack and they are probably not forced together like they might be in captivity. Orcas and dolphins are highly dependent social animals, there are examples of these animals travelling seperately i.e. young males to find a new group of females but it is naive to assume that all the information about them is available, I simply think it´s horrific to want to put something like that in a zoo or attraction park, because watching them in the wild is breathtaking and it damages the ecosystem without them there. And you don´t have much logic, normally domestication has lead to being able to use the skills of that animal to our advantage, horse is faster, dog can hunt etc, but what the hell is the purpose of an orca being domesticated? It would make more sense to push for laws to protect them better in the wild to save the wild population and have places that rehabilate but not train them, that is a completely selfish human thing, and there is no functional need that benefits the orca by training them, it will kill them back in the wild to associate all humans are friends I´m thinking of the Japanese guys here, they are slaughtering thousands a year and the money put into keeping them in captivity could be going towards protecting them in the wild
Sad is right. PETA is not about animal welfare. We have animal welfare laws, which we could strengthen or enforce more stringently. That would fall within our present legal framework, where animals are owned but must be cared for up to standards. What PETA seeks to do is to destroy that framework altogether. Get it? In PETA-land Animals could not be owned. You would not own your dog, anymore than you own your children. Your dog could sue you because your neighbor doesn’t like what you’re feeding him, etc. I could hire a lawyer to represent your dog against you. Your dog’s claim for vet care could compete with the needs of your children, etc. Your “use” of the animal as a pet could be construed as “exploitation” and could be illegal.
Would your dog get the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”? No, according to PETA’s Newkirk, only the right to a painless death! Also, the dog would lose the protections he now has as your property. You could not sue anyone for hurting your dog; the dog himself would have to sue.
The point is to establish a vegan world, where no animal products are used, not for food, clothing, entertainment, exhibition, pets, leading the blind, nuthin’, a world where all domesticated animals are extinct.
Once again: IT’S NOT ABOUT THE GOOD OF ANIMALS!! It is inappropriate to be discussing training or enrichment or stimulation, etc. in response to a post about PETA, because as far as PETA is concerned it does not matter whether it’s a performing orca or Fido sitting for a treat, it’s still exploitation. What we should be discussing is whether we want animals to be accorded human rights under the constitution.
Politically, PETA nibbles away at our rights as owners. They are petitioning the White House to support mandatory s/n until such time as the pet overpopulation problem is brought under control (to PETA’s satisfaction, I suppose). A dog’s reproductive life is about 10 years. In that time we could lose whole breeds, not to mention our own rights. And at the end of whatever the time period is, even if its only a year, all pet animals will be sterile. Extinction, again, that’s the goal.
We can help PETA by fighting among ourselves about whether to spare the working dogs, the service dogs, the hunting dogs, endangered wild dogs, the orcas, etc., or about “responsible” dog ownership, or we can support our right to own and breed our animals as we see fit without having to answer to PETA. If we don’t support one another, unconditionally, there’ll be no one to stand up for us. Sorry about the long post.
Hear hear!
“They are petitioning the White House to support mandatory s/n until such time as the pet overpopulation problem is brought under control”
It’s -been- under control for some 20 years now. That’s the only way I can label an 80% reduction in shelter intake/deaths since the 1970s. It’s been stable around 3 million annually (out of 160 million cats AND dogs and rising) for quite some time now, with nationwide S/N rates hovering around 75% of the total pet population. Only a lunatic would feel that’s -not enough- sterilization and call for more, blaming animal reproduction for the fact that life isn’t perfect and some animals end up unwanted in shelters for whatever reason. But hey, ‘lunatic’ sums up PETA perfectly, so that explains it.
Is PETA the biggest independent organisation for animals welfare in the States? Maybe they know fine what they’re doing.
Someone there said it’s about getting publicity. Even more, to stimulate people to think it new. Which I don’t much see in this discussion.
In Finland we have two that kinda groups. In recent years, both have concentrated on revieling the poor environments & conditions in pig- and cattlefarms by video-taping in secrecy and giving the material to the media. Due to that, more & more people are aware of the ugly scenes behind every bite they take – and they’re now doing other choices in their consumtion – also cultural.
PETA has said repeatedly they are against pet keeping and animal use and breeding in all forms, no matter how humane. They see eating animals as cannibalism and keeping pets as slavery and animal abuse, just on it’s face. So no, they are not reputable or reasonable in any way.
Oh, so they are indeed the very radical wing in the animal wellfare thing, yeh?
You haven’t red the recent “green” ethics, philosophy, have You?
By recent, I mean the stuff started about 50 years ago. By following that kind of way of thinking, one can end up to stop consuming animal products totally. It is true that philosophically – and it does indicate the logic, too – that not-consuming-animals-and-not-having-pets-lifestyle can be justificated – call it “not reputable nor reasonable”, doesn’t matter.
I think it’s safe to assume that Finns shoot more holes in their wild animals per capita than any nation on earth.
That is a net positive for animals in general, in my opinion. Every meal of wild moose or duck, is one fewer factory farmed chicken or cattle needed.
But no, captive animals are not slaves, they are our dominion and our responsibility.
Yeh, Bill, may be.
“Our dominion and our responsibilty” – yes, that’s what the bible and the muslim Koran once said. All animals are our property and we are their masters and we must treat them well – even treat them as they were our brothers.
There’s another way too, that tones the well-treating aspect and even goes for the liberation for the animals.
Assuming you are not a blind person, it’s easy to see that humans have had an enormous impact on the living conditions on the earth, harming all the creatures, also the human itself.
Tho’ not necessarily in Texas or Tennessee…?!?
PeTA is not animal welfare.
They are animal rights.
They are the lunatics who want to give apes voting powers.
I wonder who the apes vote for?
I bet the chimps are totally for Rick Perry. He’s into getting nasty and mean.
Francisco Franco.
Dave, there is the evident connection between the rights and the welfare.
PETA is really not interested in animal welfare, only “rights”. They do nothing to prevent animals from suffering, except to kill them.
As I noted before, rights and welfare ARE connected.
Well, if your view of animal welfare is enforced sterilization, and killing them if you don’t approve of something about them, I suppose PETA could be about animal welfare. I’m certainly glad they don’t have any interest in MY welfare.
Personally, I think people who rescue animals (mostly pets) are NOT doing more important work than these animal-rights organizations. May be, on the contrary.
I’ve seen it very closely myself that if you are a rescuer, you are nothing but a cleaner woman.
But if you stand that for more than 20 years, then it may start to have some wider importance in the society. But you can’t stand it. It’s an insane job.
You really don’t want to go down this slope. It’s one thing to be axed and spanked over, but it’s quite another to say they should be recognized as legal citizens.
I do agree animals are under guardians, and there are guidelines guardians should follow; like how children don’t have constitutional rights, but their guardians do. However, to give children the full extension of rights adults receive… is particularly disturbing.
We are not talking about human rights here. We are talking about civil rights.
Oh, don’t I?
In a society, full human rights do include civil rights.
Immigrants, gypsys, kids, criminals, handicapped and so on are more or less lacking the civil rights.
And that’s a very big problem for many of them.
I see it can be a problem to an animal too.
In the present law, a dog is a property.
That’s insane.
And THAT view is the reason for the abuse of the animals.
If our dog had (adjusted) civil rights, I think it would sound more reasonable, than a dog being treated (juridically) just as an item.
And please read Marji’s comment far above (& maybe below too).
Bridget, you are commenting on the wrong subject.
We are not talking about the United Nations’s “Declaration of Animal Welfare”. We are talking about the United STATES’s Constitution.
If I was to travel to the United States as a Canadian, I don’t have constitutional rights.
Well, I do have some “rights” as extended to foreigners out of fear of prosecution of U.S. citizens falsely declared as enemy of the state.
Like – You are free to leave the US? ; )
No.
It’s You who doesn’t know.
The UN civil right DO comphere with the US civil rights.
Some of the UN civil rights:
- If a member of the society feels his rights being necleted, may he be justified to raise a claim.
- Legally suspected are non-guilty until they are tested guilty
- No minority must be discriminated by the authorities
- Torturing and killing must not be allowes, and death penalty must concern only to the most coarse crimes
- Slavery and forced labour must not exist
- The panarkism must rule, ie. a member must have the right to leave the state and to move freely
- Privacy must be guaranteed
(Sorry my poorish English)
Actually…
Let do extend panarchism to dogs.
It will piss off the spay/neuter crowd.
I thought You wanted to have a serious discourse, not lousy used “jokes”. Was wrong.
Panarchism can touch only the wild.
But there are societies, micro- or bigger-, where dogs can roam quite freely -were they family members or not.
My dog is one of the very few who walks un-leashed (with me). That’s clearly not panarchism, but it’s a step to a better side.
There are cases, when one has to earn ones civil rights. They don’t ALWAYS come for free. At least, You have to grow up first and become a quite sane being as mentally and physically.
I see some dogs having earnt a particular status too, maybe not always legally, but micro-socially.
If you think giving animals equal rights to human beings will magically obliterate all animal abuse, I have a great bridge to sell you in the Sahara.
Animals ARE property. They are not children or human beings — they are created, bred, and kept by human beings. That doesn’t mean they don’t have feelings and should be allowed to be tortured. Most civilized countries -already have- laws against abusing animals, and requiring humane treatment of those raised for food in particular.
What PETA wants is for animals to be legally recognized as the equal to a human being, so that keeping a pet or farm animal would legally be the same as enslaving a human being or eating them. THAT is insane.
:::clapclapclapclap:::
Pai, like to know, why You feel it so insane?
Seems You take it as a personal thread – or what?
In Your country, in the 1800s, most Americans thought it’d be insane to free the blacks. Those civils sounded much like You now.
Yes, animals are property, in the main part.
Pets are better off, if they are treated as a members of their family.
Pigs & cattle are just production animals. Wolves have very unsure and limited rights in Fenno-Scandia.
That doesn’t mean their position couldn’t change. Actually it’s living all the time, see. The EU has guranteed better conditions for hens, some dogs can enter to the White House or supermarket, etc.
And evidently PETA is doing something revolutionary and it will leave its track in the history and future of this issue.
It may be hard to accept for an average man, but there’ve been plenty of doctoral thesis about the item, and new ones being made – organizations work for it – people take action for it – consumers making new choices – cultural evaluation, etc.,
I see the future intresting in this way.
Oh, yeaaaah, PUTA is revolutionary all right:
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/
PETA is interested in the rights of animals, unless it interferes with their own lives, or the profits of their supporters.
http://www.animalrights.net/2002/leslie-alexander-another-hypocrite-peta-celebrity/
Issue of slavery aside, if corporations can have personhood and legal standing, then I see no logical reason why highly intelligent mammals, like orcas, could be legally considered “persons”. They’re far more likeable than corporations.
Then invent a translator which enables them to participate in decision-making conversations such as… oh… I don’t know… stopping Rick Perry from becoming President?
If the Orcas were human then they could have the right to be beaned in the head with tear gas canisters, too.
>>>>>>>Issue of slavery aside, if corporations can have personhood and legal standing, then I see no logical reason why highly intelligent mammals>>>>>>
Maybe the only fire-proof point in this discussion. from that we could go into the deeper side. But unfortunately the pigs can’t pick up the pearls in the ash.
Yeah.
If one can thinks he can stand for the unborn humans, or the mentally insane, or, lets’ say, world-wide capital financing…
Now I really see PETA is taking the same action with its item. Surely it’s a quite a step in the long-lasting case called “animal rights – do they really exist”
I am sure actual enslaved persons (there are no doubt still a few in the world) appreciate PETA’s bringing heightened awareness to their plight.
Stupid.
They don’t read the LA Times, nor the blog.
Check out this stupid video by PETA: http://meat.org
Given how some Christians and some Muslims treat their fellow man, I don’t think that treating animals “like your brother” is exactly where humane treatment goes. Humans are animals. we have as much right to eat a cow as a lion has to eat a zebra. We have as much right to eat chickens as a hawk does. Have Humans had a significant impact on the planet? yes (although not as much as insects do). Is a lot of it negative? yes. But I don’t see PETA or HSUS arguing that we should reduce our population and thereby reduce our impact on the planet. Nor do I see those advocating animal rights taking up living like Goodall’s chimps in the Gombe either. If the argument on dressage horses or dogs isn’t reasonable due to “intelligence” — why then, where does one draw the line? So far, only humans seem to be able to use a written language. While it’s possible to train an elephant to hold a paintbrush, I’ve yet to see one do something on the order of Dali’s type of art or use perspective and shadowing in art. Humans differ from other animals in degree. But we have as much right to occupy the planet and use its resources as any other animal and owe no more apologies to the cows as lions owe one to zebras.
As for the argument that one should not breed dogs until there are none in shelters — let’s see how well the argument goes that one should have no kids until there are none in foster or orphanages, none ever abandoned by their parents or neglected — guess what? people aren’t perfect. They aren’t perfect to each other and they aren’t perfect with other living things. Laws won’t make them perfect. They may, however, result in ignorance (can’t study these because you “might” harm them) and extinction (if we don’t interfere with elephants, tigers, pandas, and yes, domestic dogs, etc, most of them will vanish off the planet. Only human interference can now correct previous human errors. Orcas aren’t going to do it.
>>>>>>Only human interference can now correct previous human errors. Orcas aren’t going to do it.>>>>>>>
Is it really the witty sharp Peggy, since that reasoning is quite of nonsense??
You keep repeating “people are not perfect” etc., but what are we talking about?
Rights – juridics. There You claim laws doesn’t work (>>>>>>>>Laws won’t make them perfect>>>>>>>>>>). But I tell You they do limit crucially our more destructive acts towards each other. The whole social pshychology school admits that every full-grown adult need laws, moral rules & controlling.
The basically same social controlling occures naturally in other societies too – not only human.
“The whole social pshychology school admits that every full-grown adult need laws, moral rules & controlling.
The basically same social controlling occures naturally in other societies too – not only human.”
GARBAGE. Most people do what’s right because it’s right, not because it’s opposite is illegal. Fear of punishment is not a prime motivator in obeying laws.
Jess, that’s very beautiful, but You’d better believe me. It’s illusion, it’s that coca-cola.
The reason people believe they have the inner ability to make the morally right choices and not needing read the law is that the rules lie hidden in our culture. You suck them in with Your mama’s milk.
And after that time of innocence, comes the social control. That’s a huge weapon, tho’ we don’t seem to notice it. We have the evolutionary-developed tolerance against noticing it too much – that’s a big part, if not the biggest – part of our social behaviour.
A typical example about the social controlling:
You rather do Your “clap-clap-clap” here with Your friends than go to demonstrate for the (animal or human) rights because if You do, You might feel Your pals may think You’re a bit odd….
Most of us do favour animal welfare, which would be putting an end to battery-farming; but most of us are against animal rights, which would be converting to veganism.
Most of us?
Not sure about that, but if it gives You the feeling of power, there You are.
Veganism?
India does it, the hindus; buddhist, tens of millions of people… other vegetarians You already mentioned, also many Christians either don’t touch meat.
Then back to the cold facts.
Why You keep making the big difference between the two conditions that are socio -empirically known to be connected – and to follow each another in any culturally-developed society?
The sosio-ethical succesion:
Welfare > Rights (evaluation) > Welfare > Rights (evaluation) >
“Law professor Gary Francione calls them the new welfarists, arguing that their work with industries to achieve reform makes them an animal welfare, not an animal rights, group”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals)
Really seems You American cousins seem to be totally out what’s happening – or rather, what one should think about it.
But You have opinions, gut!
Coca cola is coca cola and it’s good because it has always been, and most of us also think so!
Yeh!
Even the most extreme religious diet, Jainism, isn’t strictly vegan because they still rely on dairy to obtain the necessary nutrients needed for life. The ones who don’t fall back on synthetic vitamins looks like meth addicts after about 10 years.
There is a reason why I excluded vegetarianism. They still need rely on cheese, milk, eggs and honey which still relies on exploiting animals.
The people you are debating for are trying to ban egg-layers, bee-hives and dairy cows.
I can’t speak for Jess, but I can say that I wouldn’t go demonstrate for animal rights, not because people would think it odd, but because it’s not something I believe in. And I probably wouldn’t go demonstrate for human rights either, because I’m kind of lazy and I feel that the demonstrating I did in my teens & 20′s was my share, and it’s somebody else’s turn now.
Unless you want to count going down to the state capitol to participate with my dogs in some training demonstrations (agility mostly) we put on to lobby for a bill we were trying to get through the state to ensure that dog training is allowed on land zoned for farm use. Because some of the counties have been interpreting it as forbidden, and shutting down dog trainers.
I have to continue to take my turn at that sort of thing, because there are only so many people who would care enough to do so.
Bridget, if there is one thing you SHOULD HAVE learned in your time here, it’s to never, EVER put words in my mouth.
“A typical example about the social controlling:
You rather do Your “clap-clap-clap” here with Your friends than go to demonstrate for the (animal or human) rights because if You do, You might feel Your pals may think You’re a bit odd….”
I am all for human rights. Animals do not have the same responsibilities that adult humans have, and as such, do not have the same rights. Period. They do not have the right to decide where they’re going to live or go, the right to reproduce, the right to free speech. When my dogs have the ability to grow up, learn a trade, and support me in my old age, they can have rights. That ain’t gonna happen any time soon.
I could give a rat’s ass what other people think, including you, and including my few friends, about what I do, or what I think. Otherwise I would not be doing something (cross-breeding, and speaking about the harms of closed registries, and challenging the mythological status quo in my breeds) that opens me up to continual harassment, both online and in RL. Until you have walked a mile in my shoes, I suggest you shut the fuck up, because I WALK THE FUCKING WALK, and it some ways it’s made my life a pure misery. It has also made me fear for the safety of my dogs at times.
You obviously have no clue what the hell you’re talking about in regards to PeTA, because you don’t live in the US, and you have no first hand experience of their activities here, which have everything to do with creating sensations and offending people, and very little to do with animal welfare. Maybe you can explain to me how juxtaposing porn and tortured animals does anything for animal welfare? No? How about their other female exploitation stunts? No? What about killing almost every single animal that enters their shelter? Didn’t think so.
Now, see, I consider myself to be a relatively intelligent human being, and that means when I don’t know anything about a subject, I keep my mouth shut. Maybe you could just *pretend* to be intelligent, and do the same, because you’re not doing yourself any favors.
This is intresting when Peggy says >>>>>>Humans are animals.>>>>>>>>>>>>
And somewhere else she writes “Animals are not humans”.
Logically that’s okey of course,
but evidently it follows that humans and animals do share very much in common, when the thing “humans are animals” can be put out. Or at least Peggy admits that.
And what those things are, has been under disputes for a couple of thousand of years.
One thing is sure, the more we developed our culture, the more we separated from the other animals.
Finally, we created a totally new type of hierarchial system (the patriarchaist religions, politics) to put us morally above it all.
And now, there seem to be signs we are going to take it off, tile by tile.
So it seems to me.
Not a bad thing, see.
It is not a hard concept to grasp: “humans are animals; animals are not humans.”
Orcas are whales, but whales are not orcas.
Good Dave, but see rather this:
Tigers are cats > not all the cats are tigers (but some are)
Dogs are wolves > not all the wolves are dogs (but the hybrids are)
Chimpanzees are apes > not all the apes are chimps (but some are)
Humans are animals > not all the animals are humans but some are
LOL
Bridget:
Orcas are dolphins. Not all dolphins are orcas.
All dolphins are whales. Not all whales are dolphins.
nonsense? So it’s nonsense to state that humans are animals and have the same “right” to eat as any other animal? That if it is “wrong” for one animal (humans) to eat cows then one is arguing it is wrong for lions (another animal) to eat zebras? Horses don’t treat hawks as equals, lions don’t treat zebras as equals. Asserting that we “MUST” do so with other creatures is the nonsense. Our treatment (good or bad) of other animals is VOLUNTARY. It is not “morally required”, it is not based on “rights” of other animals (do lions ask zebras about their “rights”?). It is our own internal empathy and VOLUNTARY decisions that accord humane treatment to others.
Laws that don’t recognize reality don’t work. Humans cannot live on Earth without impacting something. IF we all went vegan, we’d still be removing animals by virtue of needing lands for crops and to keep those crops for ourselves. You want to pass a law saying gravity is illegal, be my guest. That’s the nonsense. If an animal is in better case than it would be in the wild, if a species has prospered in human care where similar species have not done as well in the “wild”, we have nothing to appologize for. If a gunshot is a faster, less painful death than disembowlment by hyenas, we have nothing to appologize for. We may do more becasue we WANT to do so, becasue empathy makes US feel better, but there is no intrinsic NEED to do so. PETA wants somehow for Humans to exist on the planet without any “harm” to any other living creature. It is not in accordance with the way life works on the planet.
Evolutionary evidence indicates humans were a wide wandering nomadic species. Few people have free range hunting lands of miles of brush — most live apartments. If we don’t accord free range to ourselves and ensure that each person has miles of hunting grounds, then why are we obliged to provide it for captive orcas? If we restrict hunting among ourselves even if it is most natural for us to hunt, then why is it evil to do so for zoo tigers? If a man = a rat= an orca = a lion, then humans should be able to act like lions without penalty. The fact is that we are NOT lions and we make rules for ourselves. But they are rules for US, not lions. And not Orcas either.
Peggy, did you hear what the orcas plan to do with their settlement money?
They plan to invest in fishing boats and processing plants, and they are going to fund efforts to combat the smear campaign against the seal harvest in Newfoundland.
I’m waiting for the baboons to take the Chimps to the UN for violation of their rights and for murdering members of their troops. And for the whales to petition control of orcas from ever attacking them, particularly the nasty habit orcas have of targeting babies. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaidpx3b0Jg (orcas attacking sperm whale calf).
As for some animals being people — certainly. H. Sapiens. Probably Neanderthal and the Denisova hominins would be “people” if they still existed. Would H. floresiensis? more iffy. Homo erectus? iffy. If they still existed, the more “like us” they were the more likely to be considered “people” –but unless they were able to intelligently articulate and demonstrate their desires, it’s much more likely that they would have been accorded some special status but NOT “the same as people” — Humans have rights because ultimately other humans were willing to actually fight for them in a real, violent manner (not just in the law). And that is nature too — Lions don’t respect hyenas becasue hyenas are “as smart” or ‘as entitled to life”, etc. Lions respect hyenas because hyenas can kill lions. (and yes, that is why they fight so much too– they are after similar resources and one is unable to force the other away from all of the resources. sadly, war/violence is rather tied to “rights” and respect). Lions respecting Gerbils? not so much.
It’s even worse what the chimps are doing to the red colobus.
They are actually hunting them to extinction in Uganda: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinction-countdown/2011/05/17/ugandan-chimpanzees-may-be-hunting-red-colobus-monkeys-into-extinction/
Sounds like an act of genocide to me.
[...] PETA abuses the 13th Amendment (retrieverman.wordpress.com) [...]