Welcome to Gaia! ::

You obviously see this far different from me, and I can not even consider your idea. So with that said let's leave it where it is. I love a good debate but know things are just being repeated and I almost want to just repeat all my other stuff again and say Seeeeee are you looking this time SEEEEE. But yeah, we aren't getting anywhere so, talk to you again in another debate perhaps.

Uh, no. They just know when debating endlessly will get us all nowhere.

How do you know? He could just be checking himself out in the mirror.

And as to the thread topic, I'm now even further on the animal liberation side, after reading Derrick Jensen's Endgame (which isn't animal lib per se, it's more for Earth Liberation). It showed me everything I already believed, and just made it all make sense. I believe in abolishing civilization and all the technology it has brought. Human culture worked perfectly fine until the agricultural revolution, when mankind took everything that had worked, and replaced it with practices that we had ALREADY learned didn't work.
Take laws, for example. In tribal societies, laws are not meant to stop people from doing certain things- people are always going to do bad things, and outlawing those things won't serve any purpose. Rather, laws were designed to minimize the damage that was done when these things did happen. Then, humans decided that that wasn't good enough, and they were going to punish people until they stopped doing these things. Needless to say, they kept doing them, and laws ended up doing more harm than good.
Or take food production. In hunter-gatherer societies, when they killed an animal for food, it was done with respect for that animal and with the unspoken promise of ensuring the continuation of that animal's community (since, after all, your life depends on continuing food income from that community). This is even seen in the natural world- when a predator's food supply dwindles, the predator population dwindles as well, which ensures that the food supply doesn't get wiped out (as opposed to just killing the food supply and finding something else to prey upon- and those of you who say this is natural selection and a result of competition over food supply, you're right- how many animals besides humans have survived the extinction of their prey?). Now, hunting is rarely even used for gathering food, let alone with any unspoken promise except to kill. Now, hunting is used most often as a means of eradicating wildlife- what sane people would call genocide (just as the Nazis were cleansing their land of the inhuman Jews that were a threat to the Aryan race, so are we cleansing our land of the inhuman animals that are a threat to the human race- how dare they eat our crops, even if we have killed off any food supply they might have had in the wild! Only humans are allowed to eat! Only humans are allowed to survive!).

Newski, your argument is inherently unsound because of your logical fallacies and discrepancies.

First, you rank rights on a basis of intelligence. "But I don't think an animal has the same rights as me... I don't even think stupid people do. Animals do not have the same intellectual capacity that humans do, nor do they have the same emotional capacity." In this, you say a stupid person doesn't have the same rights as yourself, who is assuredly of average intelligence.

However, later you base rights on species. "Humans are equal to other humans. Rabbits are equal to other rabbits." What about that stupid human? I thought that stupid human wasn't entitled to the same rights as yourself.

A logical fallacy in your argument is that you assume humans have to be omnivorous. "Most of what we eat are prey animals, that is there purpose in nature." Yes, perhaps a mouse is prey to a cat, but why is a cow (or other livestock animal) prey to a human? Humans do not have to be omnivores. Humans can live healthily as herbivores. Our intelligence allows us to understand this, and then we can make a decision. Because humans do not have to eat animals, I do not think it's acceptable for humans to eat them. That's causing unnecessary suffering. That's really devaluing the rights of an animal to that of an unthinking and unfeeling object.

"But we also have a responsibility to respect and conserve nature." Is killing animals really conserving anything? Animal husbandry is terrible for the environment, even when the animals are treated well. If it is a human's purpose to conserve nature, to take care of the planet, then eating animals goes against this purpose because it is bad for the environment. Are you really going to tell me animal husbandry has been environmentally beneficial?

"If animals had the ability to form a philosophy, form ideas, then we would see signs of artistic society or record keeping amongst animals. No, they have the necessary communication, emotion, consciousness, but not at the same level." Why do you assume an animal would express these things in the same way a human would? Perhaps they do, and humans simply cannot understand. We do, however, understand shrieks of pain and we choose to ignore them.

Newski, you cannot know what your rabbit is thinking when she/he sees himself/herself in the mirror. You have no way of knowing that more than you would know what I was thinking if I was looking in the mirror. Perhaps I was frowning, but you have no way of knowing about what I am frowning. Maybe I am curious about something, but it might not be about myself in the mirror. Your rabbit may be looking in the mirror, but how can you know what she/he is thinking? You absolutely can't. You say she/he expresses curiosity, but you do not know about what.

Animals aren't possessions. We should treat the ones we currently have as well as we can until they die natural deaths, and not breed any more. Murder isn't any less murder, nor exploitation any less exploitation, just because you're nice to your victims before you screw them over.

I'm much more of a proponent of animal liberation than animal welfare.

I've noticed a few people here mentioning that the line between welfare and liberation seems blurred. It really is quite clear.

Animal welfare proponents merely want 'better' conditions for animals in labs, slaughterhouses, breeding facilities, and factory farms. These animals are still held in conditions which are quite detestable, but to anuimal welfare proponents, giving a sow a few extra square feet in her stall, just enough so she can turn around, is considered some sort of grand accomplishment.


Animal liberation takes a more radical approach. Animal liberation is about ending the use of animals as commodities. The idea that animals can be held and abused for purposes of food, expirimentation, and entiertainment is unacceptable.

I fully agree with this philosophy of animal liberation. As sentient beings, animals deserve to be treated with respect and be free from unnessacary harm at the hands of humans. Giving cattle a little extra room to move around during their short and trecherous lives means little. They still suffer, and they are still going to be sent off to slaughter in the end. This suffering is not needed. Humans can do withouut seeing elephants preform unnatural 'tricks' at a circus. We can do without consuming animal products for food (and would likely benifit from such). In this day and age we no longer really need animals to preform medical expirimentation, as there are many alternatives available. Animal welfare is about slightly easing suffering, animal liberation is about trying to eliminate the suffering which humans inflict on animals.

Even as an animal liberationist, I personally disagree with the tactics of PETA. Their tactics consist of shoving facts down the throats of an unwilling public. I agree that education is an important factor in spreading the animal liberation philosophy, but as opposed to using shock factors (as PETA does), a more even-handed approach should be taken. Peter Singer's writings on the topic of Animal Liberation are a good example of this approach. Instead of saying "Go vegan now, because animals are dying for your food!", Singer offers up facts stripped of much of the shock value that PETA injects them with. By approcahing the topic in an even-handed way instead of with self righteous zeal you are more likely to win over support from the general public, and maybe even some converts to veganism. One of my vegan friends is fond of PETA, and uses their tactics to try to convert people to veganism. I generally keep quiet about my diet, unless the subject of animal rights comes up in conversation. I argue my stance even-handedly, and have unintentionally converted several people to veg*n diets.


However, that is simply my idea of what should be done regarding education of the public. Below the surface, I am very fond of many of the actions taken by some militant groups, such as the Animal Liberation Front. Instead of throwing facts at an unwilling public, they engage in direct action against the companies which exploit animals. Though I am a little torn when it comes to their use of certain tactics, such as arson, I do wholeheartedly agree with their manner of harming profits and rescuing animals, since profit is the only language such industries seem to comprehend. That being said, I do not agree with many groups who are more militant than the ALF. I find the tactics of groups such as the Justice Department detestable, simply because they do not find fault in harming and even killing humans in the name of animal liberation. I am a pacifist, but I see no fault in breaking the law in order to save the souls of innocent sentient beings. I'm just too wussy to engage in such action myself.


'Pets' are a sticky subject among liberationists though. I personally believe that acting as a caregiver of an animal is not a negative thing, provided that you respect the animals wishes, and provide them with adequate food, water, room to roam, stimulation/play, exercise, attention, love, and medical care. I personally am the caregiver of two wonderful kitties. I do not think of them as my 'property', but more as two darling animals whom I am responsible for giving care to. I respect them when they show that they want to be left alone, and I give them attention when they desire it.