Leilani,
You wrote:
I am well aware of where ducks rank intellectually,
but that in no way sanctions abuse to them
I don't think Rob is saying that because he is against
Big Govt micromanaging his eating habits, he
therefore favors abusing animals.
I am a vegan and I like animals, but I am passionately
against the state telling me how to run my life.
Best, Michael
Thanks Michael. Sometimes I forget to soften my own image. Yes, there's
tofu in my fridge, no, I've not eaten veal in probably a decade, and yes, I
pay extra for the more humane chicken eggs. I doubt I'll ever be vegan, but
I'm certainly well on my way to vegetarian. I'd love to see the Star Trek
day where food is molecularly replicated. Blah, blah, blah... But human
rights still trump animal rights, even if we develop sufficient technology
where we have no _need_ to eat them.
Even people who believe in that human-to-animal-to-plant hierarchy of rights
that Starchild mentioned should understand where I'm coming from. Since all
laws are ultimately enforced at the point of a gun, the real libertarian
question has to be whether it's okay to shoot a human for causing perceived
discomfort to an animal. (I say perceived, because the feed tubes used for
foie gras mimic the mother bird's beak feeding the baby bird, and a bird's
gullet is anatomically much less sensitive than our throats. So I really do
think we humans are projecting a "gosh, that must hurt" emotional response
when galvanic and adrenaline tests done in hyper-politically-correct France
_prove_ that the bird really isn't in any distress while it's being fed that
way.)
As for this "might makes right" argument Steve brought up, that's totally
missing the point. There is no "right" or "wrong". I'm saying it's
altogether unacceptable to legislate morality's "rights and wrongs", because
it's totally subjective. I'm a gay man from the South. You'll simply have
to trust me on this point. Legislating _anyone's_ morality, whether
conservative Christian or liberal Green, is always a BAD idea.
I'm saying that, instead of legislating morality, we should only legislate
what is minimally required by the "social contract" (for lack of a better
term), i.e., mutual protection of humans' life, liberty, and property.
Animals don't fit into this equation, because they don't have the rational
ability to agree to this "contract". Every right carries with it
responsibility, and animals can't be held responsible for anything. Animal
rights people can't have it both ways. It can't be more acceptable for an
animal to poop on or tear up my property than a human, or more acceptable to
bite or kill me than a human, unless you acknowledge that it does not have
the same rights as a human.
Oh, and I did do high school debate, Steve. I know it's an extremely
powerful strategy to simply dismiss any slippery slope argument as
intellectually dishonest. But I ask you to look at the trend. When the
leftists went after the smokers, all of us for smokers' rights said the next
stop on the slippery slope would be fattening food, and all the anti-smoking
people claimed that such slippery slope arguments were ridiculous. As we
now know, it wasn't so absurd, after all. So, now that the leftists are
saying there's no slippery slope from foie gras bans to veganism at
gunpoint, I hope you don't mind that I'm highly suspicious of such claims.
Back to Michael's attempt to soften my rhetoric, let me say this: I look at
animal rights like housing the poor. Just because it's something that most
of us believe in and are voluntarily willing to support, does NOT make it
the proper domain of government, which should be limited to protecting human
life, liberty, and property.
Rob
P.S. Regarding Starchild's bias against "modern farming techniques", I'm
afraid that is falling into the leftist trap of saying that all modern
technology is automatically bad. The only modern technology I recall on
Grandma's farm was the year they put an electric light fixture in the
milking shed and another in the chicken coop. Yet even without "modern
techniques", farm life was pretty gruesome in comparison to the foie gras
feeding tubes. I think you city boys have been too sheltered by only seeing
grocery store meats that come in Styrofoam trays with clear plastic covers.
So the shock of seeing how that meat gets into those trays is what turned
you into such ardent animal rights activists. Maybe that's why 90% of these
animal rights activists are middle-to-upper-class college-educated totally
sheltered young people. If anything, modern techniques seem much more
sterile than the traditional ways, so decrying modern farms as evil just
magnifies how sheltered these activists are.
[mailto:dredelstein@…]
Michael,
For the same reason, you would also be passionately against government laws against torturing humans, correct?
-- Steve
As for this "might makes right" argument Steve brought up,
that's totally missing the point.
Actually, it was your argument. I only labeled it.
There is no "right" or "wrong".
I'm saying it's altogether unacceptable to legislate morality's
"rights and wrongs", because it's totally subjective.
Is slavery ok? Are beatings of a wife by a husband or slave by a master ok? Is torture of an individual by a church or state ok? Opinions on these things vary widely between cultures and time periods and are therefore "subjective". Does this mean it is "unacceptable" to have legislation regarding them?
-- Steve
Again, you're missing the point, Steve. Of course my personal morality
doesn't condone slavery or spousal abuse, but that's not why it's illegal. My
subjective morality has nothing to do with it.
Slavery and spousal abuse are illegal because, as rational creatures, we have
set up a society based on mutual protection of human life, liberty and
property. Morality is nowhere in the equation. Human beings agree to treat
each other with mutual respect (and set up a government to enforce those
rights), because we are capable of entering into that agreement. A beaten
wife deserves protection from abuse in our society as a "right", but the
flipside of that right is her "responsibility" to not beat up other humans,
like her children.
At no time does an animal "agree" not to injure a human, so they have no right
to be free from injury by humans.
But you skipped my most important point. In a libertarian society, where, as
Starchild described, human rights are at the top, while sprout rights are at
the bottom, how is it acceptable to force a human with the point of a gun to
stop eating animals, much less stop causing them (supposed) discomfort?
Slavery and spousal abuse are illegal because, as rational creatures, we have
set up a society based on mutual protection of human life, liberty and
property.
"We" have also set up a society with animal protection laws.
Morality is nowhere in the equation. Human beings agree to treat
each other with mutual respect (and set up a government to enforce those
rights), because we are capable of entering into that agreement. A beaten
wife deserves protection from abuse in our society as a "right", but the
flipside of that right is her "responsibility" to not beat up other humans,
like her children.At no time does an animal "agree" not to injure a human, so they have no right
to be free from injury by humans.
Ok, we've moved from:
- torture is ok if the victim is not capable of defending itself
to:
- torture is ok if the victim isn't competent enough make legal agreements
Children, infants and the mentally handicapped may also be unable to make such an agreement. Does this mean they are free to be beaten or tortured?
But you skipped my most important point. In a libertarian society, where, as
Starchild described, human rights are at the top, while sprout rights are at
the bottom, how is it acceptable to force a human with the point of a gun to
stop eating animals, much less stop causing them (supposed) discomfort?
The ultimate reason is that the knowledge that torture is taking place makes people feel bad. It is our nature to feel empathy for things that our mammalian brains recognize as living things (it's actually been shown that living/non-living categorizations are made at a very low level in the brain). I would guess that this is also (ultimately) why slavery, wife beating, etc has been criminalized. Once the economics of material advantage vs. psychological well being tipped in favor of psychological well being, the act became criminalized.
-- Steve
Steve Dekorte said:
"We" have also set up a society with animal protection laws.
And gun laws and drug laws and high taxes and lots of other un-libertarian use
of government force. What's your point?
Ok, we've moved from:
- torture is ok if the victim is not capable of defending itself
to:
- torture is ok if the victim isn't competent enough make legal
agreements
Who's this "we"? I never said anything about torture being okay for anyone or
anything. "Okay" is a subjective moral judgment. I'm only talking about what
infringements on human rights can justify the use of government force in a
libertarian context. To varying degrees, those not competent to make
decisions for themselves cede their rights to whomever is their guardian. If
I imprison you in your bedroom, that's illegal. If a parent imprisons their
child in their bedroom, it's called "time out". And I have no problem with
the doc running the psych ward locking the doors on his way out. Clearly,
humans with less cognitive ability have fewer rights in our society.
Children, infants and the mentally handicapped may also be unable to
make such an agreement. Does this mean they are free to be beaten or
tortured?
Depends on your definition, I guess. Ask a five year-old who used a
four-letter word in front of their mom whether a bar of Dial soap in one's
mouth is torture, and you'll get a different response than you would from the
mom.
And though I'm against all corporal punishment, regardless of age, I also know
it's not feasible to pass a law criminalizing the spanking of children,
because the only way to enforce it is to invade the privacy of the family.
Again, my morality says no spanking, but as a Libertarian, I can't support a
law to force my moral judgment on others.
And none of the ALF groupies have responded to my point that scientific tests
of the ducks during that feeding procedure have proven that they do not
experience elevated anxiety or discomfort. So this talk of "torture" seems
misplaced to me.
The ultimate reason is that the knowledge that torture is taking place
makes people feel bad. It is our nature to feel empathy for things that
our mammalian brains recognize as living things (it's actually been
shown that living/non-living categorizations are made at a very low
level in the brain). I would guess that this is also (ultimately) why
slavery, wife beating, etc has been criminalized. Once the economics of
material advantage vs. psychological well being tipped in favor of
psychological well being, the act became criminalized.
If it were considered libertarian to legislate based on empathy and feelings,
I'd have to join our anarchist friends and oppose all government. Some people
feel that gays are disgusting, and I'm quite glad that they have no right to
use government force against me to legislate based on their feelings. I fear
the day that your "economics" tip in favor of Jerry Falwell's psychological
well being to the detriment of my "material advantage", which I assume is a
leftist euphemism for individual liberty.
Rob
> I don't think Rob is saying that because he is against
> Big Govt micromanaging his eating habits, he
> therefore favors abusing animals.
>
> I am a vegan and I like animals, but I am passionately
> against the state telling me how to run my life.Michael,
For the same reason, you would also be passionately against
government
laws against torturing humans, correct?
-- Steve
Steve,
I would and I am.
You may recall, I'm an anarcho-libertarian.
I'm against govt laws. I favor libertarian
(private) laws against torturing humans.
I believe initiating aggression is wrong, and
since govt = aggression (in the form of taxation
and maintaining a monopoly on the use of force),
govt laws are inextricably intertwined with aggression.
Michael
To avoid confusion, I'd like to suggest that instead of saying you're against a particular government law, simply say you are against all government laws. For example, if you said you are against a government law that prevented say, <insert random minority here - Jewish, Hispanic, etc> people, from being tortured, it would be taken to imply something very different about your perspective than saying you are against all government laws.
-- Steve
I appreciate the suggestion.
Best, Michael
Rob,
You assert below that the role of government should be limited to protecting human life, liberty, and property. That's a step backward. I thought we were agreed that intelligent extra-terrestrial life forms would deserve legal protection on some other basis than belonging to the human species.
Now I haven't heard about these French studies that allegedly prove that force-fed ducks don't suffer from this treatment. But because this defies common sense, I think a healthy dose of skepticism is in order. I was not aware that France has a reputation for being "hyper-politically-correct" -- they just refused to allow Muslims to wear scarves in school, which is quite politically incorrect. Even if your description were accurate, France is also known as a nation of gourmets. In fact it is where foie gras originally comes from, if I'm not mistaken.
Common sense suggests that if the ducks were hungry, they would eat on their own. How often do you see animals turn down food, even when they've already had plenty? If they have to force-feed these ducks, I suspect that the birds definitely *do not* want to be eating that food. They are obviously not able to think about it rationally and consider, "Hmm, I've had enough." The way they likely know that they've had enough is because they reach a point where their bodies give them negative feedback if they continue to eat -- i.e. they experience discomfort or pain. The fact that tests allegedly showed no increase in their adrenaline should not be taken as proving anything. Have you ever gotten a rush of adrenaline from continuing to eat when you are already stuffed? I haven't. But I have experienced the discomfort of having eaten too much.
I'm not sure what a galvanic test is, so I can't comment on that. But here is part of what the website of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (http://www.goveg.com/feat/foie/index.html) has to say about foie gras:
"Foie gras, which is French for "fatty liver," is made from the grotesquely enlarged livers of male ducks and geese. Birds have up to 2 pounds of food per day pumped into their stomachs through long metal pipes that are shoved down their throats. The cruel ordeal often causes severe injuries that make it painful or even impossible for birds to drink. Those who survive the feedings suffer from a painful illness that causes their livers to swell to eight to 10 times their normal size. Many birds become too sick to walk and are reduced to pushing themselves across their cages with their wings. When the birds are slaughtered, their livers are sold for foie gras."
I agree that the rights of humans should trump the rights of non-human animals (remember the hierarchy I suggested). But I disagree that putting humans first necessarily means that other animals may simply be treated as property and should have no legal protection whatsoever. I especially disagree that it's OK to subject them to torture in the name of human supremacy.
My bias against "factory farming" is not a bias against modern techniques simply because they are modern. My bias is against farming techniques which are inhumane to animals. I agree that animal farming in general tends to be rather gruesome, and am not holding up traditional farming as an ideal. But grandma's farm seems downright idyllic compared to living conditions and manipulation of animals' bodies that are designed to maximize the production of eggs, milk, meat, etc. with no concern for the health or comfort of the providers. It seems idyllic compared to lifetime confinement in spaces where there is no room to walk or move about normally, compared to systematic mutilation, compared to deprivation of sunlight, etc. Rob, I suggest you watch the "Meatrix" animation, or if you can stomach a more detailed look, spend some time at the PETA website.
You say every right carries with it a responsibility. What responsibility do newborn human babies have? None, correct? Do you believe then that they likewise have no rights? That it's OK for their parents to torture them? If you make an exception because of their future potential as human adults, then let's hypothesize a baby born with a definitely terminal condition who has only days to live. Would you say it is OK to torture this baby, since it will never have any responsibilities, and therefore (according to you) never have any rights?
Saying that it *can* be more legally acceptable for a non-human animal to poop on your property, tear it up, etc., than it would be for a normal human adult to do these things is not trying to "have it both ways." In fact it's the way human infants are currently treated under the law. You would have no legal recourse against a human baby that acted in such a manner. Responsibility is derived from knowledge; rights are not. And in any case it's not true, as you put it, that "animals cannot be held responsible for anything." People can and do discipline their animal companions, and I'm comfortable with this if it is done in a non-abusive manner, for example scolding a dog for heeding the call of nature in the wrong place, or making her wear a muzzle in public if she is prone to biting strangers. I would not consider it OK to keep a dog muzzled just for the hell of it, so this is definitely related to the animal's personal responsibility.
I know that libertarians as well as leftists often speak of the impropriety of "legislating morality." Such phraseology works because everyone knows what is meant by it, but I think it is technically redundant. When it comes right down to it, *all* laws are about legislating morality. How is a law against rape any less morality-based than a law against eating meat? Laws are society's way of saying "this is OK; that is not OK." If the standard were simply "act in your self-interest," you wouldn't need a law to tell you what that self-interest was. How is bringing up the issue of "might makes right" missing the point? Isn't "might makes right" precisely what you have in the absence of any morality? You mentioned being floored by the response on this topic; I'm equally amazed that you seem to want to discard the very idea that there can be legitimate standards about what is right and wrong.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
On Thursday, February 12, 2004, at 04:58 PM, Dr. Michael R. Edelstein
wrote (in part):
You may recall, I'm an anarcho-libertarian.
I'm against govt laws. I favor libertarian
(private) laws against torturing humans.
Michael,
Reading your reference to private laws just led me to a rather odd
realization. You're not against government. You're simply against
government enforcing its rules on other peoples' land. Under your
system, if I buy a piece of land, I become the government of that piece
of land; I have the "right" to exercise a monopoly on the use of force
there and compel people to comply with my rules while they are on it,
yes?
Of course since you're not in favor of "public" land, all the land in
the world would be under the control of one government (landowner) or
another. And of course those governments would have broader authority
within their jurisdictions, and there would be many more governments
than there are now. So not only are you not anti-government, you
actually want *more* government! Who would have suspected this of the
anarcho-capitalists? 8)
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-discuss/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
On Thursday, February 12, 2004, at 04:58 PM, Dr. Michael R. Edelstein wrote (in part):
You may recall, I'm an anarcho-libertarian.
I'm against govt laws. I favor libertarian
(private) laws against torturing humans.
Michael,
Reading your reference to private laws just led me to a rather odd realization. You're not against government. You're simply against government enforcing its rules on other peoples' land. Under your system, if I buy a piece of land, I become the government of that piece of land; I have the "right" to exercise a monopoly on the use of force there and compel people to comply with my rules while they are on it, yes?
Of course since you're not in favor of "public" land, all the land in the world would be under the control of one government (landowner) or another. And of course those governments would have broader authority within their jurisdictions, and there would be many more governments than there are now. So not only are you not anti-government, you actually want *more* government! Who would have suspected this of the anarcho-capitalists? 8)
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
Please don't think that my lack of response to this for the next few
days means that I'm at a loss for counter-arguments. I immediately
scream them out loud to coworkers, Kai, or whomever is in earshot
when I read these emails. Rather, I'm just at a loss for time --
doing a server upgrade Friday and spending the weekend in Sacramento
with Marriage Equality California.
But please, in the future, don't nitpick quite so severely. So I
left off the quotes around "human", Starchild. I'm just too busy and
tired to type "sentient being" over and over again. It doesn't mean
I'm backtracking on what I said earlier.
Instead, try using your time to search Google to find those
scientific studies regarding foie gras. At least read (even if you
disagree with them) the sites that list the counterpoints to
ALF/PETA's arguments. The fact that you brought up that tired old
"disease" argument is proof that you didn't do your homework before
jumping into this debate (if enlarged livers were considered a
disease in ducks, the USDA would do as much as an inept government
agency could possibly do to keep them off the market). The fact is
that "hepatic lipidosis" is the name for the human disease where the
liver enlarges and fills with fat deposits, but storing extra fat in
the liver is a perfectly natural thing for birds to do as an energy
storage mechanism to prepare for migration. If, as a human, all of
my skin came off in one big sheath, that would be a sign of serious
disease, and it would surely hurt like hell. But when a snake has
that happen, nobody in their right mind calls it a disease or dares
suggest that it's "torture".
But don't worry too much about being ignorant of the facts. You're
no worse in that respect that most of the animal rights crowd. To
illustrate, if you Google for "foie gras" and "hepatic lipidosis",
you'll notice that dozens of different animal rights websites pop up,
all with THE EXACT SAME TEXT. That's because one person wrote the
lie once for the PETA website, and all the intellectually lazy animal
rights groupies just copied it word-for-word without themselves doing
any research whatsoever.
Anyway, at least go read this:
http://www.sonomafoiegras.com/facts.pdf and come up with reasonable
counterpoints, if you wish, based on science, logic, and reason, but
not emotion or subjective morality. When I'm back on Monday, I'll be
happy to continue the discussion if you guys are still interested.
But if at that time we're still stuck on using government force to
inflict your brand of morality on me, I'm just going to have to drop
the discussion and write it off the same way I've written of
religious conservatives' disapproval of my sexual orientation.
They're just too hard-headed for me to argue with anymore, and it's
just easier for me to write a check to an organization that fights
for my rights in court.
Rob
- -----Original Message-----
Dear Starchild and the rest of us:
I cannot thank-you (Starchild) enough for the preceding. It explains my position clearly and succinctly. At the risk of being redundant, I thank-you again.
I must confess secondarily, that I am disturbed by some of the name-calling that has resulted from these discussions. Mike Denny (and yes Mike, I am taking this personally,) used the name "busy-body". I was not aware that expressing one's opinion and/or dismay qualifies as such. I have never attempted to force anyone to stop doing anything, and I feel quite offended that you would say such a thing. And to Rob, whom I have agreed with upon occasion, I am not a "groupie" for anyone. If this is true, then all of us that believe passionately are "groupies." I happen to be a dues paying member of ALF, and PETA as a point of clarification. However, I do not proselytize; I will respond with my opinion when these subjects are broached, (usually at someone else's instigation.)
I was under the impression that differences aside, we are all friends in liberty. Maybe I was mistaken.
Leilani
Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
Rob,
You assert below that the role of government should be limited to
protecting human life, liberty, and property. That's a step backward. I
thought we were agreed that intelligent extra-terrestrial life forms
would deserve legal protection on some other basis than belonging to
the human species.
Now I haven't heard about these French studies that allegedly prove
that force-fed ducks don't suffer from this treatment. But because this
defies common sense, I think a healthy dose of skepticism is in order.
I was not aware that France has a reputation for being
"hyper-politically-correct" -- they just refused to allow Muslims to
wear scarves in school, which is quite politically incorrect. Even if
your description were accurate, France is also known as a nation of
gourmets. In fact it is where foie gras originally comes from, if I'm
not mistaken.
Common sense suggests that if the ducks were hungry, they would eat on
their own. How often do you see animals turn down food, even when
they've already had plenty? If they have to force-feed these ducks, I
suspect that the birds definitely *do not* want to be eating that food.
They are obviously not able to think about it rationally and consider,
"Hmm, I've had enough." The way they likely know that they've had
enough is because they reach a point where their bodies give them
negative feedback if they continue to eat -- i.e. they experience
discomfort or pain. The fact that tests allegedly showed no increase in
their adrenaline should not be taken as proving anything. Have you ever
gotten a rush of adrenaline from continuing to eat when you are already
stuffed? I haven't. But I have experienced the discomfort of having
eaten too much.
I'm not sure what a galvanic test is, so I can't comment on that. But
here is part of what the website of People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (http://www.goveg.com/feat/foie/index.html) has to say about
foie gras:
"Foie gras, which is French for "fatty liver," is made from the
grotesquely enlarged livers of male ducks and geese. Birds have up to 2
pounds of food per day pumped into their stomachs through long metal
pipes that are shoved down their throats. The cruel ordeal often causes
severe injuries that make it painful or even impossible for birds to
drink. Those who survive the feedings suffer from a painful illness
that causes their livers to swell to eight to 10 times their normal
size. Many birds become too sick to walk and are reduced to pushing
themselves across their cages with their wings. When the birds are
slaughtered, their livers are sold for foie gras."
I agree that the rights of humans should trump the rights of non-human
animals (remember the hierarchy I suggested). But I disagree that
putting humans first necessarily means that other animals may simply be
treated as property and should have no legal protection whatsoever. I
especially disagree that it's OK to subject them to torture in the name
of human supremacy.
My bias against "factory farming" is not a bias against modern
techniques simply because they are modern. My bias is against farming
techniques which are inhumane to animals. I agree that animal farming
in general tends to be rather gruesome, and am not holding up
traditional farming as an ideal. But grandma's farm seems downright
idyllic compared to living conditions and manipulation of animals'
bodies that are designed to maximize the production of eggs, milk,
meat, etc. with no concern for the health or comfort of the providers.
It seems idyllic compared to lifetime confinement in spaces where there
is no room to walk or move about normally, compared to systematic
mutilation, compared to deprivation of sunlight, etc. Rob, I suggest
you watch the "Meatrix" animation, or if you can stomach a more
detailed look, spend some time at the PETA website.
You say every right carries with it a responsibility. What
responsibility do newborn human babies have? None, correct? Do you
believe then that they likewise have no rights? That it's OK for their
parents to torture them? If you make an exception because of their
future potential as human adults, then let's hypothesize a baby born
with a definitely terminal condition who has only days to live. Would
you say it is OK to torture this baby, since it will never have any
responsibilities, and therefore (according to you) never have any
rights?
Saying that it *can* be more legally acceptable for a non-human animal
to poop on your property, tear it up, etc., than it would be for a
normal human adult to do these things is not trying to "have it both
ways." In fact it's the way human infants are currently treated under
the law. You would have no legal recourse against a human baby that
acted in such a manner. Responsibility is derived from knowledge;
rights are not. And in any case it's not true, as you put it, that
"animals cannot be held responsible for anything." People can and do
discipline their animal companions, and I'm comfortable with this if it
is done in a non-abusive manner, for example scolding a dog for heeding
the call of nature in the wrong place, or making her wear a muzzle in
public if she is prone to biting strangers. I would not consider it OK
to keep a dog muzzled just for the hell of it, so this is definitely
related to the animal's personal responsibility.
I know that libertarians as well as leftists often speak of the
impropriety of "legislating morality." Such phraseology works because
everyone knows what is meant by it, but I think it is technically
redundant. When it comes right down to it, *all* laws are about
legislating morality. How is a law against rape any less morality-based
than a law against eating meat? Laws are society's way of saying "this
is OK; that is not OK." If the standard were simply "act in your
self-interest," you wouldn't need a law to tell you what that
self-interest was. How is bringing up the issue of "might makes right"
missing the point? Isn't "might makes right" precisely what you have in
the absence of any morality? You mentioned being floored by the
response on this topic; I'm equally amazed that you seem to want to
discard the very idea that there can be legitimate standards about what
is right and wrong.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
Please don't think that my lack of response to this for the next few
days means that I'm at a loss for counter-arguments. I immediately
scream them out loud to coworkers, Kai, or whomever is in earshot
when I read these emails. Rather, I'm just at a loss for time --
doing a server upgrade Friday and spending the weekend in Sacramento
with Marriage Equality California.
Good for you... you'll have to let us know how it goes!
But please, in the future, don't nitpick quite so severely. So I
left off the quotes around "human", Starchild. I'm just too busy and
tired to type "sentient being" over and over again. It doesn't mean
I'm backtracking on what I said earlier.
Come now, how am I supposed to know that when you say "human," you mean "all sentient beings?" (Actually I'm sure you *don't* mean "sentient," since that means able to perceive via the senses and would obviously include non-human animals.)
Surely you can see that whether you are arguing for rights on the basis of being human, or on the basis of intelligence, sentience, rationality, ability to take personal responsibility, or whatever, is a very important distinction in this conversation. And yes, I am especially vigilant in looking for inconsistencies here, because I suspect that you *are* in fact arguing for rights on the basis of being human, but trying like mad to find a more convincing rationale. 8) Hence your unwillingness to say things like "human infants should have no rights because they are incapable of taking responsibility" or "severely retarded humans should have no rights because they are not intelligent," even though you have argued for applying such standards to non-human animals.
Instead, try using your time to search Google to find those
scientific studies regarding foie gras. At least read (even if you
disagree with them) the sites that list the counterpoints to
ALF/PETA's arguments. The fact that you brought up that tired old
"disease" argument is proof that you didn't do your homework before
jumping into this debate (if enlarged livers were considered a
disease in ducks, the USDA would do as much as an inept government
agency could possibly do to keep them off the market).
You mean like the way the USDA has been so conscientious about keeping "downer" cows (animals who fall down and are too sick to get up and walk) from being made into meat? (This practice was only recently banned in the wake of all the "mad cow disease" publicity.)
The fact is
that "hepatic lipidosis" is the name for the human disease where the
liver enlarges and fills with fat deposits, but storing extra fat in
the liver is a perfectly natural thing for birds to do as an energy
storage mechanism to prepare for migration. If, as a human, all of
my skin came off in one big sheath, that would be a sign of serious
disease, and it would surely hurt like hell. But when a snake has
that happen, nobody in their right mind calls it a disease or dares
suggest that it's "torture".But don't worry too much about being ignorant of the facts. You're
no worse in that respect that most of the animal rights crowd. To
illustrate, if you Google for "foie gras" and "hepatic lipidosis",
you'll notice that dozens of different animal rights websites pop up,
all with THE EXACT SAME TEXT. That's because one person wrote the
lie once for the PETA website, and all the intellectually lazy animal
rights groupies just copied it word-for-word without themselves doing
any research whatsoever.
It must have been frustrating to keep encountering more animal rights websites while trying to find a coherent defense of foie gras! LOL... However, I'm sure your criticism above is valid, at least the charge of copying without doing research. But of course it isn't just animal rights proponents who do this. Libertarians often republish things without checking the facts too. Remember the recent email forward stating (erroneously) how members of Congress aren't required to pay into Social Security?
And in the case of , I believe the "illness" (they actually used this word, not "disease") charge is accurate. An "illness" or a "disease" is "impairment of normal physiological function affecting part or all of an organism" or "an impairment of health or a condition of abnormal functioning." I believe these are fair descriptions of the force-fed ducks (see separate email providing more details on this practice and its consequences).
Anyway, at least go read this:
http://www.sonomafoiegras.com/facts.pdf and come up with reasonable
counterpoints, if you wish, based on science, logic, and reason, but
not emotion or subjective morality.
I went to this page and read the document. I think most of the material (excluding the specific defense of Sonoma Foie Gras's farming operations and what you might call the "subjective morality" of referring to the animal rights activists as "domestic terrorists" and so on) is adequately countered by "The Grief Behind Foie Gras" which I'm sending as a separate email.
One additional point I will make here, is that the ability of birds in the wild to expand their throats and esophagi in order to swallow prey, or the ability of their livers to expand to store fat for migration, does not necessarily mean that the same birds will not be adversely affected by having metal pipes shoved down their throats, or that they will maintain good health while having their livers engorged on the farmer's schedule in an atmosphere where they are cooped up rather than out flying and burning calories. If these practices really resembled a duck's natural behavior, then ducks could be killed in the wild for foie gras rather than being force-fattened on farms, now couldn't they?
I'll also pose a quick question: If the natural ability of duck and geese livers to expand and contract keeps the animals from being hurt by force-feeding, as Sonoma Foie Gras claims, then why (as described in "The Grief Behind Foie Gras") are only male ducks considered able to withstand such treatment, and why do so many of those who are subjected to it die from having their stomachs explode, that workers were being given bonuses for killing fewer than one out of ten?
When I'm back on Monday, I'll be
happy to continue the discussion if you guys are still interested.
But if at that time we're still stuck on using government force to
inflict your brand of morality on me, I'm just going to have to drop
the discussion and write it off the same way I've written of
religious conservatives' disapproval of my sexual orientation.
They're just too hard-headed for me to argue with anymore, and it's
just easier for me to write a check to an organization that fights
for my rights in court.
I'm sorry you still believe a law prohibiting you from torturing animals would be an infringement of your rights. I do, however, think you deserve credit for not eating veal, buying cage free eggs, moving toward vegetarianism and so on, as you mentioned in a previous message. I'd meant to say this before.
While I think emotion may be trying to tell us something important when it comes to how animals are treated, you can't tell me I haven't been arguing rationally. And if you think you have (or can find) logical arguments to refute the other points I made below that you did not address in your last message, and the facts documented in "The Grief Behind Foie Gras," then I look forward to reading them on Monday or whenever.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
Leilani,
Thanks for your kind words.
I think at times like these it's wise to heed Thomas Jefferson's admonition that "I have never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friendship."
What Mike and Rob mean is not force in the literal sense that they think you are going to physically interfere with their eating, but that you would support laws that do so. Of course I presume this is technically true; I know I support such laws. The question is whether or not the laws would be an *initiation* of force against them, or a justifiable defense against *their* initiation of force.
Since this is obviously the point of disagreement, and both sides in our debate are using considered libertarian arguments to support their positions, I feel that continuing to accuse anyone of being busybodies or force-initiators or groupies, or whatever is a bit unnecessary -- certainly it is undiplomatic.
But from their perspective, of course we *are* proposing to initiate force against them. Just as libertarians on both sides of the abortion debate work together despite feeling that the others are advocating the initiation of force, we ought to be able to work together despite our similar disagreement on the topic of animal rights.
Obviously this can be a touchy subject. It was an animal rights conversation that led to Jean Kennedy getting so incensed by my calmly responding to her rabid email, after she said she didn't want to hear from me for a month, that she banned me from coming to her event!
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
Dear Starchild and the rest of us:
I cannot thank-you (Starchild) enough for the preceding. It explains my position clearly and succinctly. At the risk of being redundant, I thank-you again.I must confess secondarily, that I am disturbed by some of the name-calling that has resulted from these discussions. Mike Denny (and yes Mike, I am taking this personally,) used the name "busy-body". I was not aware that expressing one's opinion and/or dismay qualifies as such. I have never attempted to force anyone to stop doing anything, and I feel quite offended that you would say such a thing. And to Rob, whom I have agreed with upon occasion, I am not a "groupie" for anyone. If this is true, then all of us that believe passionately are "groupies." I happen to be a dues paying member of ALF, and PETA as a point of clarification. However, I do not proselytize; I will respond with my opinion when these subjects are broached, (usually at someone else's instigation.)
I was under the impression that differences aside, we are all friends in liberty. Maybe I was mistaken.Leilani
Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
Rob,
You assert below that the role of government should be limited to
protecting human life, liberty, and property. That's a step backward. I
thought we were agreed that intelligent extra-terrestrial life forms
would deserve legal protection on some other basis than belonging to
the human species.Now I haven't heard about these French studies that allegedly prove
that force-fed ducks don't suffer from this treatment. But because this
defies common sense, I think a healthy dose of skepticism is in order.
I was not aware that France has a reputation for being
"hyper-politically-correct" -- they just refused to allow Muslims to
wear scarves in school, which is quite politically incorrect. Even if
your description were accurate, France is also known as a nation of
gourmets. In fact it is where foie gras originally comes from, if I'm
not mistaken.Common sense suggests that if the ducks were hungry, they would eat on
their own. How often do you see animals turn down food, even when
they've already had plenty? If they have to force-feed these ducks, I
suspect that the birds definitely *do not* want to be eating that food.
They are obviously not able to think about it rationally and consider,
"Hmm, I've had enough." The way they likely know that they've had
enough is because they reach a point where their bodies give them
negative feedback if they continue to eat -- i.e. they experience
discomfort or pain. The fact that tests allegedly showed no increase in
their adrenaline should not be taken as proving anything. Have you ever
gotten a rush of adrenaline from continuing to eat when you are already
stuffed? I haven't. But I have experienced the discomfort of having
eaten too much.I'm not sure what a galvanic test is, so I can't comment on that. But
here is part of what the website of People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (http://www.goveg.com/feat/foie/index.html) has to say about
foie gras:"Foie gras, which is French for "fatty liver," is made from the
grotesquely enlarged livers of male ducks and geese. Birds have up to 2
pounds of food per day pumped into their stomachs through long metal
pipes that are shoved down their throats. The cruel ordeal often causes
severe injuries that make it painful or even impossible for birds to
drink. Those who survive the feedings suffer from a painful illness
that causes their livers to swell to eight to 10 times their normal
size. Many birds become too sick to walk and are reduced to pushing
themselves across their cages with their wings. When the birds are
slaughtered, their livers are sold for foie gras."I agree that the rights of humans should trump the rights of non-human
animals (remember the hierarchy I suggested). But I disagree that
putting humans first necessarily means that other animals may simply be
treated as property and should have no legal protection whatsoever. I
especially disagree that it's OK to subject them to torture in the name
of human supremacy.My bias against "factory farming" is not a bias against modern
techniques simply because they are modern. My bias is against farming
techniques which are inhumane to animals. I agree that animal farming
in general tends to be rather gruesome, and am not holding up
traditional farming as an ideal. But grandma's farm seems downright
idyllic compared to living conditions and manipulation of animals'
bodies that are designed to maximize the production of eggs, milk,
meat, etc. with no concern for the health or comfort of the providers.
It seems idyllic compared to lifetime confinement in spaces where there
is no room to walk or move about normally, compared to systematic
mutilation, compared to deprivation of sunlight, etc. Rob, I suggest
you watch the "Meatrix" animation, or if you can stomach a more
detailed look, spend some time at the PETA website.You say every right carries with it a responsibility. What
responsibility do newborn human babies have? None, correct? Do you
believe then that they likewise have no rights? That it's OK for their
parents to torture them? If you make an exception because of their
future potential as human adults, then let's hypothesize a baby born
with a definitely terminal condition who has only days to live. Would
you say it is OK to torture this baby, since it will never have any
responsibilities, and therefore (according to you) never have any
rights?Saying that it *can* be more legally acceptable for a non-human animal
to poop on your property, tear it up, etc., than it would be for a
normal human adult to do these things is not trying to "have it both
ways." In fact it's the way human infants are currently treated under
the law. You would have no legal recourse against a human baby that
acted in such a manner. Responsibility is derived from knowledge;
rights are not. And in any case it's not true, as you put it, that
"animals cannot be held responsible for anything." People can and do
discipline their animal companions, and I'm comfortable with this if it
is done in a non-abusive manner, for example scolding a dog for heeding
the call of nature in the wrong place, or making her wear a muzzle in
public if she is prone to biting strangers. I would not consider it OK
to keep a dog muzzled just for the hell of it, so this is definitely
related to the animal's personal responsibility.I know that libertarians as well as leftists often speak of the
impropriety of "legislating morality." Such phraseology works because
everyone knows what is meant by it, but I think it is technically
redundant. When it comes right down to it, *all* laws are about
legislating morality. How is a law against rape any less morality-based
than a law against eating meat? Laws are society's way of saying "this
is OK; that is not OK." If the standard were simply "act in your
self-interest," you wouldn't need a law to tell you what that
self-interest was. How is bringing up the issue of "might makes right"
missing the point? Isn't "might makes right" precisely what you have in
the absence of any morality? You mentioned being floored by the
response on this topic; I'm equally amazed that you seem to want to
discard the very idea that there can be legitimate standards about what
is right and wrong.Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>> Thanks Michael. Sometimes I forget to soften my own image. Yes,
> there's
> tofu in my fridge, no, I've not eaten veal in probably a decade, and
> yes, I
> pay extra for the more humane chicken eggs. I doubt I'll ever be
> vegan, but
> I'm certainly well on my way to vegetarian. I'd love to see the Star
> Trek
> day where food is molecularly replicated. Blah, blah, blah… But
> human
> rights still trump animal rights, even if we develop sufficient
> technology
> where we have no _need_ to eat them.
>
> Even people who believe in that human-to-animal-to-plant hierarchy of
> rights
> that Starchild mentioned should understand where I'm coming from.
> Since all
> laws are ultimately enforced at the point of a gun, the real
> libertarian
> question has to be whether it's okay to shoot a human for causing
> perceived
> discomfort to an animal. (I say perceived, because the feed tubes
> used for
> foie gras mimic the mother bird's beak feeding the baby bird, and a
> bird's
> gullet is anatomically much less sensitive than our throats. So I
> really do
> think we humans are projecting a "gosh, that must hurt" emotional
> response
> when galvanic and adrenaline tests done in hyper-politically-correct
> France
> _prove_ that the bird really isn't in any distress while it's being
> fed that
> way.)
>
> As for this "might makes right" argument Steve brought up, that's
> totally
> missing the point. There is no "right" or "wrong". I'm saying it's
> altogether unacceptable to legislate morality's "rights and wrongs",
> because
> it's totally subjective. I'm a gay man from the South. You'll simply
> have
> to trust me on this point. Legislating _anyone's_ morality, whether
> conservative Christian or liberal Green, is always a BAD idea.
>
> I'm saying that, instead of legislating morality, we should only
> legislate
> what is minimally required by the "social contract" (for lack of a
> better
> term), i.e., mutual protection of humans' life, liberty, and property.
> Animals don't fit into this equation, because they don't have the
> rational
> ability to agree to this "contract". Every right carries with it
> responsibility, and animals can't be held responsible for anything.
> Animal
> rights people can't have it both ways. It can't be more acceptable
> for an
> animal to poop on or tear up my property than a human, or more
> acceptable to
> bite or kill me than a human, unless you acknowledge that it does not
> have
> the same rights as a human.
>
> Oh, and I did do high school debate, Steve. I know it's an extremely
> powerful strategy to simply dismiss any slippery slope argument as
> intellectually dishonest. But I ask you to look at the trend. When
> the
> leftists went after the smokers, all of us for smokers' rights said
> the next
> stop on the slippery slope would be fattening food, and all the
> anti-smoking
> people claimed that such slippery slope arguments were ridiculous. As
> we
> now know, it wasn't so absurd, after all. So, now that the leftists
> are
> saying there's no slippery slope from foie gras bans to veganism at
> gunpoint, I hope you don't mind that I'm highly suspicious of such
> claims.
>
> Back to Michael's attempt to soften my rhetoric, let me say this: I
> look at
> animal rights like housing the poor. Just because it's something that
> most
> of us believe in and are voluntarily willing to support, does NOT make
> it
> the proper domain of government, which should be limited to protecting
> human
> life, liberty, and property.
>
> Rob
>
> P.S. Regarding Starchild's bias against "modern farming techniques",
> I'm
> afraid that is falling into the leftist trap of saying that all modern
> technology is automatically bad. The only modern technology I recall
> on
> Grandma's farm was the year they put an electric light fixture in the
> milking shed and another in the chicken coop. Yet even without "modern
> techniques", farm life was pretty gruesome in comparison to the foie
> gras
> feeding tubes. I think you city boys have been too sheltered by only
> seeing
> grocery store meats that come in Styrofoam trays with clear plastic
> covers.
> So the shock of seeing how that meat gets into those trays is what
> turned
> you into such ardent animal rights activists. Maybe that's why 90% of
> these
> animal rights activists are middle-to-upper-class college-educated
> totally
> sheltered young people. If anything, modern techniques seem much more
> sterile than the traditional ways, so decrying modern farms as evil
> just
> magnifies how sheltered these activists are.
>
> From: Dr. Michael R. Edelstein
> [mailto:dredelstein@…]
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 9:06 AM
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: John Burton seeks to prevent cruelty to
> ducks
>
> Leilani,
>
> You wrote:
>> I am well aware of where ducks rank intellectually,
>> but that in no way sanctions abuse to them
>
> I don't think Rob is saying that because he is against
> Big Govt micromanaging his eating habits, he
> therefore favors abusing animals.
>
> I am a vegan and I like animals, but I am passionately
> against the state telling me how to run my life.
>
> Best, Michael
>
> From: "Leilani Wright"
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 8:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: John Burton seeks to prevent cruelty
> to ducks
>
>> Dear Rob:
>> You obviously mis-understood my point. No where in my discourse did
> I compare Africans to ducks in regards to intelligence, etcetera. My
> point was simply that the perception at the time, was that Africans
> were mentally inferior, in fact were considered by many as "animals,"
> which was used as justification for sub-standard treatment. The fact
> that these ideas were later discarded, (at least in theory that is,)
> does not nullify the fact that this was accepted at this time in
> history. Subsequently, you are saying that because ducks are less
> intelligent than humans, it is okay to abuse them. I am well aware of
> where ducks rank intellectually, but that in no way sanctions abuse to
> them or any life form. I, quite frankly, am stunned that humans feel
> that abuse is okay,as long as the victim is less intelligent, and
> un-able to either resist or extract retribution. There is something
> sadly amiss with the human species, if we operate from this premise.
>> Leilani
>> Rob Power wrote:
>> I'm shocked that anyone would compare Africans and ducks regarding
>> intelligence and status as a rational being. Slavery was a case of
>> _perceived_ lack of intelligence, but that perception was clearly
> wrong and
>> based on "junk science". Do you really think it's just our mistaken
>> perception that ducks aren't as rational and intelligent as us?
> Honestly?
>>
>> I'm really floored by this discussion. I had absolutely no idea
> that we had
>> this kind of division amongst Libertarians regarding what is and
> isn't the
>> appropriate place for the use of government force.
>>
>> Well, let's just put it this way – if Animal Liberation Front
> decides to
>> inflict force on me for the "crime" of eating meat, they'd better be
> wearing
>> Kevlar…
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> –
>> Rob Power
>> http://www.robpower.com
>>
>> Leilani Wright said:
>>> To all:
>>> I have thus far refrained from participation, because this is
> obviously an
>>> incendiary subject. However, I can be silent no longer. I cannot
> agree that
>>> intelligence levels, and ability (or lack thereof) to exact
> retribution should
>>> be the criteria on which a decision(s) of whether or not being
> cruel is based.
>>> This specious argument can be used in many situations, one example
> being the
>>> slavery trade and subsequent ill-treatment of Africans and their
> descendants.
>>> The prevailing thought of the times was that Africans were
> mentally inferior,
>>> and as they were under extreme subjugation, could extract little
> or no
>>> retribution. And if they were able to do so, they were summarily
> exterminated,
>>> so they were of little or no threat. Every being on this planet
> deserves to
>>> right to life without un-necessary cruelty. Humans have no right
> to make such
>>> decisions as to who or what life forms can be treated badly
> without penalty.
>>> The suggestion that the ability to reason on a human' s level, and
> "fight
>>> back," as the deciding factor, sounds extremely callous.
>>> Whether or not the government should legislate these types of
> activities, is
>>> not clear to me. However, if we are as many have claimed,
> "superior" to other
>>> life forms, (a position that I feel based on my many years of
> study of human
>>> behaviour through-out the centuries, is on shaky ground at best,)
> we should
>>> strive to value each life for its own sake, and avoid un-necessary
> suffering
>>> whenever possible. This is one of the denotations of a "superior"
> being.
>>> Cruelty to anyone or anything saddens me greatly, and reflects no
> credit upon
>>> the perpetrator.
>>>
>>> Leilani
>>> Postscript: I am an avid supporter of The Animal Liberation Front,
> and hope
>>> that they continue to refrain from any sort of cruelties towards
> humans, as I
>>> do not believe that cruelty to stop cruelty is sound.
>>>
>>> Starchild wrote:
>>> Rob,
>>>
>>> I appreciate your thoughtful response, and I think you make
> some
>>> points that deserve to be addressed. I'm glad that your conception
> of
>>> rights leaves the door open to the possibility of intelligent
>>> extra-terrestrials, and does not accord rights only to human
> beings
>>> simply because they are human.
>>>
>>> Perhaps a tree does experience some form of distress at
> being cut
>>> down – I think there is some evidence for this. But I acknowledge
> that
>>> our current level of development forces us to draw the line
> somewhere.
>>> Perhaps tomorrow – a distant tomorrow – we will all be
> sufficiently
>>> well provided for that it will be possible to care for each tree,
> each
>>> plant, each micro-organism. A universe in which every living being
> can
>>> be empowered to exist under conditions that allow it to reach its
> full
>>> potential, and enjoy life without externally-imposed suffering, is
> a
>>> worthwhile goal for the human race.
>>>
>>> However this is obviously much more impractical at present
> than even a
>>> ban on meat. Again, I acknowledge that we must draw the line
> somewhere.
>>> It makes most sense to me to draw the line between plants and
> animals.
>>> In biological terms, this is where the largest division of life
> lies.
>>> Humans are much more like cows then either species are like trees.
>>> Non-human animals feel pain, as we do. Just because they are not
>>> intelligent compared to humans does not necessarily mean that pain
> is
>>> more bearable for them. Though I think more advanced species of
> animals
>>> are generally more hardwired to experience pain. I believe in a
>>> hierarchy of life: To kill a human is worse than to kill a cow is
> worse
>>> than to kill a fish, is worse than to kill a grasshopper, is worse
> than
>>> to kill a tree, is worse than to kill a sprout. In other words, a
>>> system of rights – or legal protection, if you will – based on a
>>> being's capacity for suffering. This is Peter Singer's thesis in
> his
>>> influential book "Animal Liberation," and it makes more sense to
> me
>>> than any other solution I've come across.
>>>
>>> I don't think one can solve the problem of where to draw the
> line
>>> simply by saying it's rational to ascribe rights of life, liberty,
> and
>>> property to beings of approximately equal intellect because they
> might
>>> fight back. As Steve pointed out, this is "might makes right" –
>>> ultimately, a lack of any morality. Under such a code, anyone who
> has
>>> the ability to murder you and get away with it has a perfect right
> to
>>> do so.
>>>
>>> And where does this approach leave severely retarded human
> beings? If
>>> you say that their rights must be respected simply because
> torturing
>>> and killing them would piss off too many other people who would
> fight
>>> back on their behalf – well, I submit to you that this is rapidly
>>> becoming the case with various categories of non-human animals as
> well.
>>> I assume you've heard of the Animal Liberation Front. So far they
> have
>>> limited themselves to things like arson and break-ins, explicitly
>>> refrained from killing people in defense of animals. But I predict
> that
>>> if human progress, freedom, and wealth continue on an upward
> curve, the
>>> animal rights movement will only grow larger, stronger, and more
>>> vehement. At some point, some people will be willing to fight back
> on
>>> behalf of animals using all the means normally used by groups of
> humans
>>> engaged in armed struggle against each other. I'm not making a
> moral
>>> judgment about this course of action, simply stating that I
> believe it
>>> will happen. A purely rational approach might want to take this
> likely
>>> consequence into consideration and weigh it against the importance
> of
>>> maintaining a right to abuse non-human animals at will.
>>>
>>> Yours in liberty,
>>> <<< Starchild >>>
>>>
>>>> I'm sorry, but I have to draw a line somewhere. Today, it's
> ascribing
>>>> "human" rights to birds with brains the size of acorns.=== message truncated ===
<image.tiff>
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online
<image.tiff>
<image.tiff>