Actually Stephanie, it's the Constitution of  the United States that says it, and that does make it true!You missed the point of the mogrels at the Shelters, I would never discourage anyone from buying a dog from a Shelter, it is absolutely their right to do so.  I encourge anyone looking to purchase a dog, to look at all of their choices and make the best choice for them.  I just want them to actually have choices!As far a reaching a point where we do anything we want to do in this Country.  Now it's me asking you what have you been smoking?  Everytime a bit of legislation is passed in this country, locally or federally, its citizens rights and freedoms are reduced.  We have less freedom to exercise our rights now that at any other time in US history. 

There are laws  on the books against animal neglect and abuse, there needn't ever be another bit of legislation passed to protect animals.  There needs to be increased enforcement of the laws we have, but no more laws!

In my area, shelters have to import dogs and puppies from other areas of the country and even from other countries (see news stories about the first cases of rabies in this contry in years due to this practice). In my opinion, there is obviously no over supply of puppies in this area, therefore, a breeding ban would be ridiculous.

Can't play any more "games" today.  Unlike most Animal Rights activists, I actually have animals to care fore, and will be spending the rest of my day doing just that.

Great post. I simply do not like the word "rights." You can have the right to remain silent, the right to execute people for having sex, the right to beat your child, the right to just about anything. Those who grant rights are just the people in power. Monarchs used to have the right to do absolutely anything they wanted, be it taking their money, beheading them, etc. I know this is an "Animal Rights" site, but it's obviously problematic. That's why I'd rather talk about animal liberation, aka veganism.

You say that saying it doesn't make it so. Well, I must add that having rights doesn't make it right, doesn't mean you deserve or need that right.

"I would never discourage anyone from buying a dog from a Shelter"

Actually, animals are adopted from shelters, not bought.

"Unlike most Animal Rights activists, I actually have animals to care fore, and will be spending the rest of my day doing just that."

That's interesting.  What makes you think we don't have animals to care for?  Or that we don't care for our animals?

"there needn't ever be another bit of legislation passed to protect animals."
Unfortunately, like every other problem out there, there will always be new and improved abuses & crimes that challenge existing laws.   People will think of new ways to abuse their pets, their children and other people, new ways of bending laws.  Just like gun issues, there are laws on the books that should be working, but there will always be those who find loopholes or somehow dodge the law altogether.

p.s.  I LOVE cranky Stephanie!!

We live in a rural area without an animal shelter, we do have an volunteer network that temporarily houses shelter animals to send North Shore Animal League.  Thankfully this system of sharing works quite well, especially for younger animals. 

We all need to remember though, circumstances that exist in one part of the country don't exist for the whole country, and just because some people choose to eat only plants, doesn't make it wrong for someone else to choose to drink milk or eat eggs. 

Plants are alive too, don't they have rights?  Do they have the right not to be decimated by an unchecked animal population & to grow without pesticides?  Wild deer in our area are destroying increasing percentages of the farmers food crop.  If someone doesn't do something to reduce the deer population the vegans around here aren't going to have much to eat that we don't grow ourselves behind a 6' fence. 

Of course the meat eating neighbors consider that fence unsightly in that it blocks their pristine view, they feel like they have the "right" to enjoy that view just the way they did before the vegans moved in.   See, folks! there is always more than one valid side to an argument.  Maybe what we need is less laws and more getting to know and understand each other.

"We have less freedom to exercise our rights now that at any other time in US history."

E.P. is clearly an uneducated (typos, anyone?) white male.

We have to be careful when talking about "rights."  For example how can the same people believe that women have the "right" to kill their unborn and unwanted children, believe that no one has the right to kill an animal to feed their family?  There is a GIANT disconnect there.  I think that animal cruelty should be prosecuted fully, and that we should have more law enforcement officers working to stop animal cruelty, stiffer penalties, etc....  But I also think that abortion is murder, birth control and prevention is a responsibility that comes with being a human, as is caring for the animals around us.  How can one outrank the other?

>>>For example how can the same people believe that women have the "right" to kill their unborn and unwanted children, believe that no one has the right to kill an animal to feed their family? 

In the U.S. practically no one needs to kill an animal to feed their family. People in the U.S. and most of the rest of the "developed" world eat meat for pleasure, out of habit, and out of fear of giving it up. Inflicting harm for any of those reasons is wrong - and avoidable.

I suspect that nearly all vegans would support someone who was, for example, forced to hunt and fish to survive.

Fortunately, for the vast majority of people in this part of the world, as long as they are in charge of their food decisions, it is much easier than they think to give up animal products. Most vegans look back at their pre-vegan fears of an impovershed diet with disbelief, and end up with a diet that's more satisfying and diverse than ever. There are many web sites, vegetarian societies, and cookbooks to get you on your way.

If one is pro-life, I applaud their moral stand and my plea to them would be: extend that compassionate concept as widely as possible.

Stephanie-love your articles and opinions!
I welcome cranky Stephanie anytime!

>> there needn't ever be another bit of legislation passed to protect animals.>There needs to be increased enforcement of the laws we have<<<

We agree 100 percent! :)

My last comment was somehow changed drastically from what I
actually wrote.

There needs to be a lot more animal protection laws:

- Over 90 percent of animals in laboratories are not covered by the Animal Welfare Act - which in itself is notoriously weak and full of gaping loopholes.

- Chickens are exempted from the so-called "Humane Slaughter Act." They are often fully alive and conscious - due to low stunning voltages - when they are bled to death. They may still be alive and conscious as they're dunked into near-boiling water to loosen their feathers. This is all legal because these are "standard agricultural practices."

- It is legal to cram eight hens into a "battery cage" the size of a filing cabinet. The hens have no room, no solid floor, no sunlight, no variety in their diet, no nests, no dust in which to bathe, no opportunity to exercise, no opportunity to peck at the ground, no opportunity to form normal friendships and social groups, no opportunity to use their minds or control their environment. Hens who get their wings caught between cage bars slowly die of dehydration. Living hens step over and sleep next to dead and rotting cagemates. At two years old, the hens are grabbed and pulled from their cages to be killed. All legal.

- It is legal to transport farmed animals - already weakened from confinement, one to four days of forced starvation, and being bred to overproduce flesh, milk, or eggs - in sweltering heat for 24 hours and not give them a drop water to drink.

I could give a hundred more examples. But more important than new laws is recognizing animals' interest in our hearts, and acting accordingly. It does not take a law to follow the golden rule, or to show compassion.

Where I agreee 100 percent is that we also need to better enforce existing animal protection laws.

One's right to choose is not absolute. The animals' profound interest to not suffer or be killed - and perhaps the profound interests of the animals' mates, friends, and offspring not to lose a valued companion or see him suffer - supercede the relatively trivial interest of liking the animals' flesh.

However, I would hope that we can go beyond rights - which are like rules of engagement for competing parties - and toward a world in which our actions are governed by generosity, selflessness, kindness, and a feeling of respect for and communion with all sentient individuals.

Katheleen, I am not pro-life because it's not practical in the least. Certainly I oppose abortion after a certain point, but if we deny abortion rights, then we're going to end up with dead babies instead of dead fetuses. Every issue is different. It's difficult to simply say, "Well, if you have this solution for this issue, then surely you must have that solution for that issue." The question is how we got to that solution. I don't like abortion, but banning it is too much. Besides, anti-abortion is classisist, I think.

There is no shortage of people willing to sign up on change.org just to argue vigorously against animal rights. Just reminds me of how black people were treated in the South after they were freed. No shortage of white people willing to deny them every right. They must've been pissed to lose their right to enslave other humans.

Heres my thing with animal rights....its INCONSISTENT!! Why does Sarah McLaughlin have to make a nauseating song of dog abuse but the fact that cows get processed every day is just a matter of life. I'll even say anything people domesticate seems to fall under the abuse category. I am not concerned that dogs have this "companionship" element to them. I know a family that raised a pig to be domesticated. How much you want to bet if that pig was walking around a farm and someone wanted bacon theyd cut it up no questions asked. Not in a house though, it always makes things more criminal. Any animal, even humans are fit for consumption. I have no problem with  Korean dog slaughter, or animal trapping for sport. We are the more intellegent species, we will exercise our power over lesser beings like they to others...signed sealed delivered. Your local news is next.

The thing is you can't look at ALL ARs or ALL Vegans & say we ALL think act believe one thing exactly the same.  We all live very different lives, come from very different backgrounds.  I may say I agree with Gary about societies that have to hunt to survive and another vegan may totally disagree.  Some vegans are pro-life while some are pro-choice.  Some vegans are women some are men, some are pro-2nd amendment some anti-.  There isn't just one hole to cram us all into.  And like Kathleen stated, what's right for one part of the country isn't right for another.  Though, I don't think there's a "Vegan" region & a "meat eating" region clearly defined on the map of the USA, there is a definite difference between affluent countries like the USA and impoverished nations of Africa.

And most people in the US don't kill animals for food, they let someone else do it.  If more people slaughtered their own animals, there would be less waste, less environmental destruction, less suffering.  All family farms would look like Charlotte's Web and everyone would know exactly where their food came from.  What we have in this country is a far cry from that idyllic vision. 

I agree with Lisa's last statement in answer to Ethan's first sentence.  The same could be said about the people Stephanie mentioned who signed up to make this their new home say that on the one hand, "We are the more intellegent [sic] species" and others who would like to reduce our species down to being "predators".  But what Ethan and the others have in common is that they believe we should "exercise our power over lesser beings like they do to others".
I don't equate intelligence with exercising power over the powerless.

I also don't believe that the average person takes their pets to shelters to be euthanized.  I believe they take them to their vets. That is a whole different issue that shouldn't be mixed in with the number that are killed in shelters.

Quote:


"Plants are alive too, don't they have rights?"


Katheleen,


Please peruse the archives (or other animal rights literature) prior to making baseless assumptions about our position. You will realize how ridiculous your statement about "being alive" actually is as it relates to this discussion. The same goes here:



Quote:



"But I also think that abortion is murder, birth control and prevention is a responsibility that comes with being a human, as is caring for the animals around us.  How can one outrank the other?"



This comment is predicated on a speciesist assumption. An assumption that the animal rights activists spend time challenging. You would understand this if you didn't base your argument on your own assumptions. You may also notice that it is "sentience" that concerns us, which goes to answer your rather juvenile addition to the conversation.



Quote:



"Heres my thing with animal rights....its INCONSISTENT!!"



Like Katheleen Ethan, your argument isn't predicated on our arguments but on your own assumptions about our arguments. That's just bad reasoning.



Quote:



"I encourge anyone looking to purchase a dog, to look at all of their choices and make the best choice for them.  I just want them to actually have choices!As far a reaching a point where we do anything we want to do in this Country."




E.P. has decided that the following outcome is acceptable, ethically: Interest X -- not suffering both physically and psychologically because humans get a passing pleasure from breed A -- is absolutely trumped by interest Y -- "Regardless of the availability of hundreds of thousands of orphaned labs around this country, I want to buy one from a human who gets a profit from the industry." 




To justify this, E.P. appeals to the Constitution, a "property right" I'm certain. (Because what other right could it be? Unless E.P. can enlighten us, instead of simply saying things.) So here we have an honest answer: these "reputable" breeders love their products so much that they derive their "right" to sell each one of them on a property right -- like chairs, head phones, and car tires. I hope he/she doesn't "love" his family members as he "loves" his/her property.



Quote:



"Everytime a bit of legislation is passed in this country, locally or federally, its citizens rights and freedoms are reduced.  We have less freedom to exercise our rights now that at any other time in US history."



A similar argument, verbatim, was made to defend the institution of slavery E.P. However, just like at that time -- when slavery was constitutional (So it was okay according to your argument?) -- a separate defense was necessary, beyond "It just is this way.....", to justify the institution. So here we have another argument that doesn't follow as a matter of ethics.   

I find the comments in your post today quite enlightening Stephanie. 

I take it then, that you are against the spaying and neutering of companion animals, and also of zoo animals.

http://www.animalscam.org/

Want to know the truth about these AR organizations who raise all this money and tout to love animals? Why are they not giving the money to the shelter, where it belongs, instead of trying to legislate us out of the animals we love and care about? Because they are busy bodies who want no animal to be owned, loved and care for by anyone, just ask Wayne Pacelle who said that he had "never felt a personal connection to any animal". And Ingrid Newkirk who thinks that shelter animals are better off dead than adopted.

I googled "Wayne Pacelle never felt a connection" and here's what I got:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Wayne+pacelle+never+felt+a+connection&btnG=Search

It's obvious, Candy, that your source is incorrect. Probably chopped off the "until I was six and met this wonderful animal..." from the sentence. Hahaha. Great citation.

This was indeed said about Wayne Pacelle (whether or not it was a direct quote, I can't recall) in a recent profile of him in a mainstream newspaper. And I found it very disappointing and odd too, but even if it is true (and really, even if it is true, we don't know what he means by deep connection), I have to wonder, does not feeling a deep connection necessarily preclude someone from caring for and respecting another being? I disagree with Pacelle and HSUS on a lot of fronts, but I don't doubt that he cares. Nor do I doubt for a second, despite my issues with PETA and Newkirk, that Ingrid Newkirk genuinly and deeply cares about animals.

And finally, let's please not rely on such dubious sources as the animal scam Web site--it (and others like it) is run by the Center for Consumer Freedom, an unrespected front group for the animal-exploiting industry:

http://animalrights.change.org/blog/view/the_center_for_consumer_freedom_allow_me_to_introduce_you

So Stephanie, please tell me, what is your view on the spaying and neutering of animals?

Necessary evil. That's a topic for a whole other post, R K, and I'll address it there.

I remember reading somewhere on Wayne Pacelle's blog that his first memories of seeing animals in zoos were painful for him, and that was what had sparked his interest in working for animals.  He is the first Vegan president of the HSUS - again, indication that he cares for animals.  And, let's face it: not just anybody becomes the president of a national organization if they don't care deeply about the issues they represent.

http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2007/08/gellman-essay.html

Alex (.edu Ph.D guy)

Im sorry to interrupt you as you grade term papers on humpback whale research as well as try and intimidate others on this site. Dont want things to get too tough for you at the ivory tower.

Alex, in essence your comments are pretty much a Darwinian approach to discussion. You exercise your 1600 SAT mind to not persuade but to pick on "Weaker" postings and insist they have no basis when the point of this forum is open expression. You're going to hunt clay pigeons with a grenade launcher.

Anyway, on to my argument on the irrelevance of Animal rights as a discussion peice, cause, legislation, etc. I say this becuase it involves the interraction of animals (productive or counterproductive) of any species with different levels of physical and mental capabilities.

Humans are held to a higher standard in this regard becuase we are the only known animal that has a constitution, laws, monetary systems, etc. It is absoultely a choice a lion (an animal that does not have to eat meat) has to make to either hunt a zebra or eat leaves from a tree. If he or she chooses to eat the zebra that is perfectly acceptable. He is using his greater stature and intellegence to hunt his prey. No Lion has been fined 2,000 dollars with a max 2 year sentence for killing a poor zebra..has it? A Bear may eat a human under the same circumstances...the guy's buddies might shoot it afterwards, but the bear was bigger and stronger and faster and used that to overcome any shortfalls the bear may have.

People need to eat. People are animals but it is because we are so removed from our primative roots and have that inner need to govern and be governed is why we create such a double standard with regard to our role in the animal kingdom.

I think I made myself pretty clear Alex et al. Im sorry to have wasted your time. Next time I'll but down the Maxim and read Tolstoy you smug jerk.

"Like Katheleen Ethan, your argument isn't predicated on our arguments but on your own assumptions about our arguments. That's just bad reasoning. "

Prior to that statement Alex, I did not see an argument of yours. I didnt see much less an original thought...

Humans are not the only species on earth. They just act like it.-my favorite bumper sticker

If people tried to do to other people what they routinely and self-righteously do to dogs, cats and other animals, both wild and domesticated, they'd be in maximum security prisons for life.  Breeders remind me of Hitler and his Master Race nonsense.

Humans are adopted, animals, being legal property, are bought and sold.   By slipping language "adopting, and fostering" into animal husbandry, the A.R.'s have attempted to humanize animals.  Shelters, and Rescues, exchange dogs and cats for money, just like Pet Stores, they're selling.

While my typo-s may be indicative of arthritis, poor typing skills, and bad attempts at multi-tasking, they have nothing to do with my education level or intelligence.   Any time any of you would like to whip our our IQ's and measure them, I'm ready!

You're challengine IQs?  Hm...  that's interesting.  I'm pleading no contest for your sake.

*I* did not write the contracts of the humane societies or the shelters that put language like "adopt" on these documents.  I'm sorry if you thought I was using emotional language to describe what goes on at shelters.  If you don't like that they call it "adoptions" then you should go to your local shelter & complain.  *I* can't do anything about it.

Hi Lisa, I and the thousands of dedicated breeders like me will just go about the business of reversing the trend, and referring to the exchange of dogs and cats for money as "selling."

Please don't worry about me and my IQ, I'm pretty sure I can hold my own with some one like you who's been sucked in by the A.R. movement. 

Animal welfare Yes!  Animal Rights No!

Merry Christmas to all, hope you all get to sit down to a nice Roast Beast for Chirstmas Dinner!

I am not going to fight with all of the posters on here (how UNLIKE me! :-))

I am going to say to Stephanie, you should be cranky. If you are like me, being haunted by animal abuse, it's only healthy to get cranky about it once in a while. Sometimes I am nice. Sometimes I am a total twat. It is the way it is ;-)

I agree with everything you said here. There should be no carte blanche for cruelty.

Quote:

"Humans are adopted, animals, being legal property, are bought and sold.   By slipping language "adopting, and fostering" into animal husbandry, the A.R.'s have attempted to humanize animals.  Shelters, and Rescues, exchange dogs and cats for money, just like Pet Stores, they're selling."

E.P., you know that's false. We haven't tried to "humanize" animals (whatever that means?). We are attempting to engender an alteration in how we view nonhuman animals, which necessarily involves a change in our language -- replacing the pronoun "it" with "he" or "she" for example.

Our argument is predicated on the assumption that unlike car tires and cell phones, nonhuman animals are not "things." You seem to want to rest your entire argument on the fact that these animals currently are (legal not actually) "things." However, this raises an important question: What is your justification for this state of affairs? If you insist on "It just is..." (which you are), your reasoning would have to conclude with a defense of all sorts of terrible things: slavery was legal; slaves were legal things. Was the fact of the matter all that was necessary to prove the ethic of the matter? I would hope not.

Ethan,

My challenge was valid: Don't assume things about our argument and then challenge us on that assumption. That's bad reasoning. The question was raised about companion animals, therefore, Katheleen's "argument" (and your psuedo-challenge) was more of an ad hominem than anything else. My prescription for you and Katheleen is to peruse the archives, understand where we are comming from, and place your argument on some solid ground.
 
Quote:

"It is absoultely a choice a lion (an animal that does not have to eat meat) has to make to either hunt a zebra or eat leaves from a tree. If he or she chooses to eat the zebra that is perfectly acceptable."

(I don't even think that thing about the lion is true, but that's an aside.) That's why I eat mentally challenged humans, Ethan. (Same reasoning.)

Quote:

"People need to eat."

A statement of fact. Excellent. However, a question: Why do we need to force other animals to suffer for this end when we can eat plants, which do not suffer, and live healthily? That's the premise that the animal rights movement is challenging -- How do we defend the suffering? We cannot is our claim, but this isn't the issue at hand, that's in the archives and in the AR literature.

EP - you are just proving my point: *I* am not responsible for the wording that shelters use.  You, being a breeder, do have the ability to use whatever language you want in your contracts & bills of sale for these units you produce.  Change whatever you want, even if it's to spite me.  In trying to disprove me, you've proven my point.

EP Ratledge et al.: Bring it on.

Your "logic" and comments like those from you and yours do the following:

-While there might be *some* vegans/animal rights activists who are impolite and all vegans/animal rights activists are accused of being "extreme," you are certainly proof that there is no shortage of extremism and rudeness on the other side. It's nice that true dog lovers who are here and aren't necessarily part of the AR movement get to see this.

-Make us all the more energized to do the work--promote shelters vs. breeders, stand up for the voiceless, engage in vegan outreach, etc.

-I have to imagine there is at least one pro-breeding person who is being sent to this blog to attack who deep inside just gets "it." Curiosity will be piqued, they'll be educated, and voila--one more vegan! Just one person will make it worthwhile to have to be reminded by your comments that the world is full of supposed dog lovers who also categorize other dogs as mongrels.

For the record, I know the difference between animal rights and animal welfare. I don't give money or belong to HSUS or PETA. I don't agree with everything PETA does, but their undercover investigations (which are possible because of the money they generate) have brought national attention to many issues otherwise ignored. And by the way, Ingrid Newkirk (the top dog at PETA) makes around 30K a year, and there are thousands of non-PETA-affiliated grassroots activists who devote their lives to the cause for little to nothing. So your implication that there is money in AR is probably the most preposterous thing I've read lately..and I've read alot of preposterous statements lately.

If you take only one thing from this, it should be that it is not a correct assumption to equate the AR movement with PETA or HSUS (especially since HSUS is a welfare group).

And again, like has been stated numerous times, not one person has been physically injured by an AR direct action in the US. So continuing to call animal rights activists terrorists and put us in the same category as actual terrorist like Al Qaeda is, again, preposterous.   

Finally, compassion has nothing to do with IQ.

Bravo Brandi, Lisa.

No need to excuse crankyness when you're animal brothers and sisters are being slaughtered.

How about Mr. Breeder, I lurk at the hospital when one of your loved ones give birth, and hijack the baby back to my place, feed it super hormones and drugs and make it have sex with your other child for my own benefit? After 2 generations, I'll have your baby not aware that there is even another life and that your child should be grateful that I'm selling ITS offspring to my friends?

I bet I could even have your baby eventually smile at me when I bring the drugs to it and convince myself that its living a good life.

What do you think? Seems fair to me. Of course I would never act on it... I find it alien to think like this... but you breeders.. you think like aliens. Supremist aliens. Sometimes I don't think the aliens are coming... they are already here... how could you possibly think such distorted perceptions of animals? Its all a nice cloudly delusion that keeps you comfortable. I was there once as, were many AR'ers. Its like you're debating with people who read the book, while you? You just looked at the front cover. Well done.

Calling animal rights activists "extremists" or "terrorists" is McCarthyism -- only worse in these post 9/11 days.  It amounts to hate speech.

Straight from Wayne Pacelle's fingertips today:
"I celebrate the people who go to shelters or rescue groups to adopt any homeless dog or cat. It's an act of love and kindness. But I have a special place in my heart for people who adopt senior pets. "


http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2008/12/rescued-dog.html

Yikes, people.  I think "live and let live" applies here.

Attacking people for making compassionate choices and acting as voices for the voiceless strikes me as a sort of fear-based malignant pathology.  I can only imagine that this fear stems from trying so hard to ignore that little inner voice, the one that tells you your behaviors might someday bear closer scrutiny, that voice of conscience you keep shushing as you go about your daily living as so many people do, in gluttonous and hedonistic pursuits at the expense of non-human (and, many times, human) animals.  You seem conflicted, and you're taking it out on others.

The sad irony here, as I see it, is that here are people squawking about their "rights" to exploit those who do not have a voice nor the ability to call 911, find an attorney or even post in a forum to try to end the abusive enslavement they suffer at the hands of humans.  I guess there's a reason that human and humane are two completely different words.

This country abolished slavery 143 years ago.  Isn't it time for our actions to start matching our words?

Ok Alex, since Ive gone beyond the scope anyway, why you refer to the topic/arguments here as "our" why dont I see a byline for you? If you are saying I am drawing assumptions then its funny I did not assume you were on the side of Stephanie..in fact you didnt post prior to that and why should I look at any archive for your sake?

I'll be blunt, this whole breeding, right to own nonsense comes down to the fact that we rely too heavily on dogs and other companion-like animals. There are the many people who truly need them I understand that, though now we have gone from protecting them from uneccessary and even neccessary euthanization to controlling the way owners breed them? "most private, personal events any animal-the human included.." Geez Stephanie? Its this whole equating dogs to humans stuff that kills me. Dogs if not neutered will reproduce over a 7-8 year period. THATS A LOT OF PERSONAL EVENT-ING Steph. You know what they do in China and Korea now thats great. They have prevented humans from overpopulating becuase its smart responsible governing. So why dont you just start that whole uncomfortable "for another day" conversation now becuase you know if dogs are left to their own devices which theyll love theyll push out 100 kids..times how many dogs in the world..wow were going to be ruled by mutts soon arent we? It is a no win situation becuase if they are controlled and held back and "domnesticated" by humans they will just whine and whimper and bark...name your poison. Maybe I'll move to Korea where they seem to have a more sane perspective on life and they'll just serve them for lunch after they play baseball with their bodies :-) Theres a trip you and Alex can take!

Back to you Alex..I think we have reached an impasse of sorts with this banter. You try to persuade those who obviously arent on the side of the author or you becuase we "havent read the AR literature." Truth is, this is not even a debate its a one sided judgment, no one needs your bombastic commentary on why we're illeterate, uneducated, and other things. You are a pseudo-intellect that is grossly out of touch with the world.  

OH and by the the way, Mountain Lions ARE Omnivorous!! And PLEASE visit China some day it will change your life!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0AUaFM-uPU

bon apetit!

Ironic Moment of the Day:

Ethan misspelled "illiterate".

AMEN !!!  Ethan.

You're afraid of dogs ruling the world and over populating. Fair enough. We all probably have strange end-of-world fantasies. I had a nightmare once where the earth was ruled by massive blades, guns and squares. Thinking about it now though, its not too far from the truth now is it?

The thing is right, if you believe in hierachy of life, right, Ethan? If you believe that these 'mutts' are less evolved and thats based on your cult collective agreement and therefor you have the right to do what you like to them... then you can't really argue with the idea that somebody might think they have far more evolved thoughts and development than you, and won't mind neutering you. I mean, if you resist the idea, then your statement doesn't really hold a constant does it? Its really a little meow from the corner that will run at the sound of that fearful woof.

Woof woof.

Quote:

"Truth is, this is not even a debate its a one sided judgment, no one needs your bombastic commentary on why we're illeterate, uneducated, and other things."
 
Interesting approach Ethan, I challenge you for assuming things about our argument -- which engendered your "inconsistent" claim -- and then you respond with another assumption about my argument. (I, of course, didn't call you "uneducated," etc. I said you don't understand our premises, and that's true. But if assuming the worst about us make's your choices easier to swallow, I understand.) We are at an impasse I suppose -- but we could keep going round and round. 

You are very defensive. You should investigate why this is so. It parallels E.P.’s I.Q. comments in strangeness.   

Quote:

"So why dont you just start that whole uncomfortable "for another day" conversation now becuase you know if dogs are left to their own devices which theyll love theyll push out 100 kids..times how many dogs in the world..wow were going to be ruled by mutts soon arent we?"

Ethan, there it is again. Who argued that we ought to "leave them to their own devices"? What's interesting Ethan is that your argument here suggests a defense of Stephanie’s position: We must prevent rapid breeding; therefore, breeders who do so for the profit of the thing, really ought to be the first to stop.

To add to what Robert & Alex have said concerning leaving animals to their own devices: there wouldn't be such a "surplus" of livestock & companion animals if humans weren't there to overbreed in the first place, if humans didn't breed OUT of them the ability to live as nature intended (i.e. turkeys being bred to not know how to reproduce...), if humans didn't control every aspect of domesticated animals' lives.  It's ironic, isn't it?

Well for the past 4 days, I've been breeding a lovely pure-bred Ch. fully tested bitch that was sent into be bred to my equally beautifiul Ch. fully tested dog.  My dog doesn't breed naturally, so I'm using artificial insemination--completely against their will.  If I don't have the right to do this, then why isn't the puppy police showing up to arrest me?

Just as all Animal Rights Activists are not terrorist, all breeders, in fact the vast majority of them, are not what you see on date-line investingations.

Quote:
"If I don't have the right to do this, then why isn't the puppy police showing up to arrest me?"
For the same reason that slave owners were not arrested when they exploited their human property E.P. Good argument though. 

Quote:
"For the same reason that slave owners were not arrested when they exploited their human property E.P. Good argument though."

Oh, Alex, that is so not the same thing. Too bad you are one of those people who put humans on the same level as animals. Don't get me wrong, I love animals and I always have. I would do just about anything for my animals. But I also don't anthropomorphize them. God put the animals here for a purpose; to help man provide for himself with food and clothing.

I am sure that the descendants of slaves will be glad to know that you equate them with dogs. I will be glad to let some of my friends know that this is what the ARistas think of their ancestors. Because after all, Black History month is in February. 

Maybe in time we will have a type of memorial day to remember all the ARistas who have gone before you and we will celebrate their extinction.

" Too bad you are one of those people who put humans on the same level as animals."

I hear this a lot from the "other side" of the argument, but I have never actually heard an AR activist say this. 

Candy, you will be glad to highlight to people who are celebrating their freedom from racism... you'll be glad to highlight to these people while they are grateful for the equality they have been granted... you'll actually be glad to try and get them thinking that racism is still an issue for them and tell them people think they are animals? Wow. That is really fucked up. You're going to goto their party and tell them they are wrong for thinking they are liberated from certain mindsets? Makes me think you're not only anti animal rights, you're probably racist as well and want to dampen the human equal rights parade as well. Well done!

Candy, you are not helping anybody here. Whats your purpose here besides defending yourself personally? If we AR folk as on such a useless cause, why are you here giving us power? Why don't you just let us sit in the corner and twiddle our thumbs as you probably imagine us?

That you are here acknowledges there is merit to this movement. Nobody sticks their nose into a situation that is not going anywhere. You just let it die out. Or you are the kind of person who likes to kick a dog lying on the ground. I mean, you're saying we're going to be extinct... so you like to find those things that are going extinct and stick in a few jabs and slaps on the way? What a mission you are on. Hows that working out for you? Hows it feel to be Candy Wright pretending to be on a positive purpose, drawing correlations that serve no purpose than to distract others?

Shelters kill animals. My dogs are loved. Feel any way you want but don't judge those you do not know. I breed pit bulls. myspace.com/Thomas1967

I've noticed that posts to Stephanie's blogs that intelligently challenge her draconian ideals don't get to stay up long.  Ever hear of Socialism, Communism?  Who's really closer to committing genocide, breeders of pure-bred animials, or Animial Rights Activists who want to see them extinct?

Read this one quick!   LMAO

E P, I have no idea what you're talking about, but worry not--none of your comments will be deleted because they're too intelligent.

Quote:

"But I also don't anthropomorphize them. God put the animals here for a purpose; to help man provide for himself with food and clothing."

Candy, 

Please look up an "Is/Ought" fallacy. Your argument assumes that A) there is a design to the universe, and B) you know precisely what this design is. Therefore, for argument to be plausible, you must defend these two assumptions or my counter statement -- "The universe is designed in such a way that animal rights is the only moral situation" -- is just as valid as yours. 

Evolution is a process of chance mutation; there is no design or ethic behind this process. Therefore, trying to deduce from mere evolutionary circumstance an ethical principle -- "Animals were put here..." -- is fallacious and and has been proven invalid for centuries. 

I might also add that, accepting "biblical truth," we were "designed" as vegans. (Look it up: Genesis.) Prior to the "Fall," Adam and Eve were vegans. Therefore, it follows if "Eden" is an example of "moral perfection" -- god's design and all --, that those who are vegans, since we don't need flesh to be healthy, are, in fact, better fulfilling "god's grand design" than you are Candy. 
Quote:

"I am sure that the descendants of slaves will be glad to know that you equate them with dogs."

To begin, it's not an "equation," it's an analogy. I will forgive your mistake, however, because I understand your automatic, rather juvenile, reaction as it's common. 

Secondly, I would not simply be "equating" (if that's what I was doing) "dogs to black Americans," I would be equating dogs to you too -- and me, and every other human being in that like you and I Candy, dogs have the capacity to suffer, therefore, their interest in not suffering (and having pleasurable experiences on the other side) ought to be considered important in our moral deliberations. Why not?   As such: Candy is a dog is a pig is a rat is Alex. 

E.P., 

Here is a simple equation. If you have one spot open in a household to be filled with a dog two things can happen: that single spot can be filled with an existing animal or a non-existent animal can be brought into this world to fill that spot. Unfortunately, given the millions of homeless dogs and cats who currently exist, if you bring more dogs and cats into existence to fill these open spots, other dogs and cats will necessarily remain homeless. There is no way around this conclusion: If an animal is brought into existence for profit (by breeders, e.g.) and adopted, then another animal, currently in existence, will not be adopted.

To respond that these people who give you money for a dog will not adopt an animal is a non-issue (and thus, totally irrelevant) because the equation won't change at all accept that, inevitably, some of the animals you bring into the world for profit will end up homeless -- that is the reality as you know. Therefore, as opposed to improving the equation, you aid in amplifying its bad effects. Simply for the profit of the thing -- and because some humans receive a passing pleasure from a certain breed of dog.     Therefore, for those who are concerned with animal welfare -- which, by definition, aims to avoid unnecessary suffering --, ought to not be purchasing animals from breeders because they necessarily fill open spaces that would have otherwise been filled by an existing animal. Thus creating a situation where unnecessary suffering isn't avoided; it's intensified.  

I am judging you Thomas because you create more unnecessary suffering in this world. Indeed, you necessarily add to the problem you illuminate: shelters need to kill some of the dogs that become homeless because of your actions. You must defend your choice.