The Speciesist's Corner - Exposing animal rights idiocy

PeTA using racist propaganda for their own ends ( yet again ! )

noreply@blogger.com (Grizzly Bear) — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:06:00 +0000

Everybody probably remembers PeTA's "Holocaust on Your Plate" campaign from a few years back. It was a vile, hateful comparison of using animals for food and the murder of Jews and other people in the Nazi Holocaust. Well, their latest stunt comes close to being equally as vile as well as equally stupid. Their latest video entitled "Wrong Meeting" features a white-robed Klansman going to an American Kennel Club meeting. The inference is that breeding pure-bred dogs is akin to racism. They even introduce a new term, "breedism", which may even be more inane than "speciesism". As per usual, PeTA has no shame when it comes to exploiting the suffering of others for their own ideological gain. From the end of the Civil War up to the time of the civil rights movement, the KKK waged a campaign of murder, hatred and terror against African Americans. To compare that to the breeding of purebred dogs, and having a preference for one breed over another, is nothing short of morally and intellectually bankrupt. In their eyes, if you have a favorite breed of dog, you are no better than a Klansman. How utterly inane. Of course, moral and intellectual bankruptcy is nothing new to PeTA, so I guess it shouldn't surprise anyone. For those that relish irony, there certainly is some here. After all, PeTA, and the AR movement in general, is composed mainly of privileged whites.

Response to comments

noreply@blogger.com (Grizzly Bear) — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 03:42:00 +0000

Someone calling himself "Joey" recently left some comments on an old post that are worth sharing for the purpose of exposing their idiocy. Here is the fine little piece of wisdom left by Joey:

"Have you even read ANIMAL FARM? That Orwell qoute is totally out of context.
Ever hear of a 'confirmation bias'? Look it up and scratch your red neck cuz it applies to YOU!"

Let's dissect Joey's little attack. Yes, I have read Animal Farm. I am well aware, and most readers probably are as well, that the quote from the character Napoleon I use is not used in the context of the book. I use it on the header of the blog because, when placed into the context of animal rights and "speciesism", it becomes quite witty and amusing. If I had used this quote out of context in an attempt to support a specific argument, Joey would have a valid point. However, nowhere on this blog have I used this quote to support an argument. It is simply there to provide wit ( wit which apparently eludes Joey ) and to provoke thought.
As for "confirmation bias", the astute reader will notice that Joey gives no specific examples of said confirmation bias that he is accusing me of, making said accusation rather hollow. It is also quite amusing to me that someone who I assume is an AR supporter would accuse someone who doubts the validity of the AR ideology of confirmation bias. In fact, it is quite laughable. ARAs start from a predetermined position that their ideology is morally correct and righteous. They then use all kinds of fallacies and circular reasoning to try to "prove" the validity of that belief. One need only skim through any number of pro-AR blogs, websites, or FAQs to see this in action. For someone who supports AR to accuse someone who is skeptical about the rational validity of the AR ideology is the height of living in a glass house and throwing stones.
Joey's attack gets really funny at this point. He goes from trying to impress with a big term like "confirmation bias" to an utterly mindless ad hominem fallacy. Really, Joey, "red neck"? Is that all the better you can do? "Redneck" is so tired, so passe', so lame. If you're going to engage in this kind of idiotic name-calling, at least try to be funny, clever or witty. You have been none of the above. Thanks for playing, Joey. Anytime you want to embarrass yourself again, I'll be happy to post your comments for other readers to see.

Disgraced New Jersey senator launches anti-hunting tirade

noreply@blogger.com (Grizzly Bear) — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 15:16:00 +0000

Here is an amusing little tirade by one Robert Torricelli. For those that don't know, Mr. Torricelli is a former U.S. senator from New Jersey who was forced from office after being implicated in a bribery scandal. Let's dissect Mr. Torricelli's diatribe:

"I did, however, observe a bow hunter last month while hiking through the woods. This gentleman must have weighed in at about 250 lbs. This was probably his first sporting experience since the hot dog eating competition at Nathan's."

Why does Torricelli feel the need to engage in ad hominem attacks against this individual? How does attacking him for his appearance lend any credibility to his argument? Answer: it doesn't. It's simply self-indulgence.

"He was perched in a tree with lunch and refreshments. Below him were scattered melons and corn. With the onset of winter the deer are without plentiful food. The smaller deer in particular can't find anything to eat and are quickly attracted to the pile of seeds. The great hunter must have been resting thirty or forty feet from his prey. Felling the helpless and hungry animal requires all of the skill and precision of a bather finding the surf. The arrow flies directly down on the feeding animal."

Here, Torricelli makes two points, one I agree with, the other I don't. His first comments about baiting deer are right on the money. Baiting wildlife with food, is, in most states illegal. At the very least, it is very poor sportsmanship. I don't know if baiting is illegal in New Jersey, but if it is, did Torricelli report this individual to a game warden? If not, why not? I certainly would. I do not hesitate to report any illegal activities I see from hunters and anglers, because such activities are bad for wildlife and conservation, not to mention they ruin the experience for those of us who do it ethically and legally, as well as bringing general disrepute on all sportsmen.
Torricelli's second point that it is easy to make a shot from above on deer is off the mark. In bowhunting, most shots require skill, even at close range. Many factors come into play, including wind, the angle of the shot, the draw weight of the bow, the type of sight being used, etc.. Shots from above are often more difficult than shots in which the archer and the target are level with one another. Anyone who has tried archery can attest to the fact that it is more difficult than it looks. I doubt that Mr. Torricelli has ever picked up a bow in his life, let alone made a difficult shot.

"It only gets worse. The slaughter is only part of the story. Days latter my dog begins to arrive home with various body parts. Whole legs, ribs and skulls arrive at my door. It isn't enough that the animal is killed."

How does Torricelli know that the parts his dog was dragging home came from a carcass abandoned by a hunter? He offers no proof. How does he know it didn't come from roadkill or some other source? Furthermore, why does he irresponsibly let his dog roam about the countryside at will?

"The carcass is left to rot. Provisions have been made for homeless centers to receive the meat to feed the needy. It would make some sense out of the killing. It's just too hard to climb down from the tree and recover the dead animal. There's just so much exertion that one sport can impose on its participants."

Here again, I must concur with Torricelli on this. Leaving a carcass to rot is at best unethical, and at worst, in many states, it is illegal to waste edible wildlife. Again, it also begs the question, however, if it is illegal in New Jersey, and Torricelli knew it was going on, why did he not report it to authorities?

"A small wounded doe was found hovering behind my barn. Her leg was nearly severed by a single blast from our precision marksmen. She shook in terror if you approached. Her panic caused her to urinate as her wide eyes conveyed pure terror. She couldn't move but she dragged herself on three legs to attempt a futile escape."

If this deer was found on Torricelli's property, and was wounded this badly, it didn't get there from very far. A hunter would have wounded it very close to where it was found. If that is the case, they were very likely trespassing on Torricelli's property. And yet, we aren't told whether anyone was trespassing, and whether or not Torricelli confronted them or notified law enforcement. Notice also the self-contradictory statement in the last sentence: "she couldn't move but she dragged herself..". All of it leads me to question the truthfulness of Torricelli's little tale.

"I killed her. I ended her misery. "

Now Torricelli's story just gets better. He claims he killed her. How did he kill her? Was it in humane fashion? Why doesn't he tell us? Furthermore, did he have a license to kill a deer? If not, he himself is technically a poacher and a lawbreaker! Intentional killing of wildlife without the proper license to do so is poaching, Senator Torricelli. Also, what did he do with the carcass? Did he hand it over to wildlife officials as he should have? Why doesn't he tell us? When one looks critically at Senator Torricelli's story, very little of it adds up.

"60,000 deer will be slaughtered in New Jersey this year because we tolerate these yahoos and haven't the will to humanely control the population."

One wonders what ideas Torricelli has in mind "to humanely control the population". Since he would apparently rather just rant than offer solutions, one has to wonder. Perhaps he has "deer birth control" in mind. Such a solution is a known failure on many levels. First, it is extremely labor intensive because the vast majority of the female deer in the population have to be treated in order for it to be effective. It is thus very, very expensive. Hunting, by contrast, actually generates revenue for wildlife departments, making them fairly self-sufficient and thus making wildlife management far less of a burden on taxpayers. Secondly, it can take years for the population to decline and tangible results to be seen. Third, and most importantly, are the negative ecological impacts of such a policy. The drugs used in "deer birth control", once they are introduced, have the potential to contaminate the entire food chain and have very negative ecological consequences. It is not a viable solution, despite the false claims of the AR community. Perhaps Torricelli had predator introduction in mind. Reintroduction of native predators to ecosystems has great ecological benefits, but if he's looking for a "humane" solution, this isn't it. The death that prey animals suffer at the fangs and claws of predators is often far less humane than any arrow or bullet from a hunter.

I wonder if Torricelli is a vegan or vegetarian. My guess is no, which costs his rant something in terms of moral credibility. If Torricelli is a meat eater, as I guess he probably is, then he is simply paying someone else to do the "dirty work" of killing animals for him to eat ( even if he is a vegan, the production of his food still involves animal suffering and death ). At least hunters have the courage to recognize where food comes from and do the killing themselves. An anti-hunting omnivore ranks right up there with many ARAs as the worst kind of hypocrite.

Gary Yourofsky advocates rape in insane diatribe

noreply@blogger.com (Grizzly Bear) — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 23:29:00 +0000

Anyone who doubts just how completely and utterly sick and idiotic some in the animal rights movement can be, really needs to read this insane little screed by one Gary Yourofsky that was published in The Shield, the student newspaper of Indiana Southern University. For those not familiar with Mr. Yourofsky, he is one of the single most radical figures in the animal rights movement. He is a "humane education lecturer" employed by PeTA. He is a convicted felon that spent 6 months in a maximum security prison in Canada. Let's dissect Yourofsky's venomous, crazy little tirade:

"Each year I give around 250 lectures on ethical veganism to over 10,000 students explaining that victims of discrimination, slavery and murder come in all shapes and sizes."

Ten thousand students! Now that's a scary thought isn't it? Here we have a convicted felon, who is an unabashed advocate for terrorism and violence, and he lectures to 10,000 students a year, some of them even at the middle school level? Why is this nutjob allowed anywhere near a school or the impressionable minds of young people? We don't allow the Ku Klux Klan, Islamic radicals, or any other hate and violence promoting individuals or groups to lecture in schools. Why should Yourofsky be allowed to spew his venom, when, he in fact is no different? Any school administrator who would allow this person to speak to children ought to terminated and never allowed to work in education again.

"So, while my lifestyle and lectures are based on compassion, those who refuse to stop harming animals force me to support 'eye for an eye' and 'by any means necessary' philosophies."

What Yourofsky is espousing here is the philosophy of the desperate. The animal rights movement has utterly failed to convince people that it is wrong to use animals for utilitarian purposes such as food, clothing, scientific research, companionship, etc.. Yourofsky knows this. Since he and his movement cannot achieve what they want through changing minds, in desperation, they resort to tactics of violence and terrorism instead. Where else do we see this kind of "philosophy" in the world today? Does the term "radical Islam" or the name al-Qaida ring a bell? Just like Yourofsky and his ilk, they too have failed to convince the majority of the world that their way is best, and they too turn to the same type of threats and actions.

"Rapists, murderers and child molesters should be vivisected, executed and dissected, allowing researchers the opportunity to gather useful information that would actually benefit human health for a change."

In the previous statement above, Yourofsky claims that his lifestyle is "based on compassion". Now, he comes up with this little gem! Can't you just feel the compassion oozing from Mr. Yourofsky? It seems that Yourofsky's understanding of rights only includes animals and he is utterly ignorant of basic human rights. He is also utterly ignorant of the contributions that scientific research using animals has made to human health, as the list is quite extensive.

"Every woman ensconced in fur should endure a rape so vicious that it scars them forever."

Wow. I did a double take and had to read this twice to make sure that's really what I was reading. I've read a lot of things from ARAs in my time, from the amusing to the idiotic to the utterly crazy, but this about takes the cake. Yourofsky has just advocated, in no uncertain terms, that a woman be raped. A rape is one of the most heinous, horrible crimes of violence that can be committed against a woman. To advocate it is so hateful, so venomous, and so misogynistic that one is at a loss for words. Bear in mind that this is not only just one of the leaders of the animal rights movement, but one of the leaders that actively targets young minds for indoctrination and recruitment.

"I'll be lecturing at USI on Tuesday, January 29, in the Mitchell Auditorium from 7-9 p.m."

I'm torn as to how I think the student body and faculty and Indiana Southern should deal with Yourofsky's "speech". One part of me hopes that the hall is full and that the good people of ISU boo him off the podium and drive him from their campus. On the other hand, perhaps the best thing is for no one to show up at all. Perhaps one of the best things that can be done with a criminally-minded, hate-mongering, misogynistic lunatic is to just ignore him and thus give absolutely no creedence to his hate and lunacy.

There's little more that I can add to Yourofsky's screed that it doesn't say for itself. Animal rights advocates wonder why the majority of the world dismisses them as crazy. When one of the prominent figures of their movement spews this kind of vile insanity, it is all to easy to see why that is the case. If I had to bet the farm, I would also guess that you won't see any of Yourofsky's rhetoric condemned on any pro-AR blog or website.

P.S. Has anyone ever noticed that some AR cowards like to threaten women who wear fur, but you never, ever hear them threaten big guys that ride Harley's and wear leather from head to toe?

I'm back....

noreply@blogger.com (Grizzly Bear) — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:00:00 +0000

after a hiatus over the holidays. We were very busy over the holiday period as Stephanie and I entertained some family and I had a lot going on after I got back to work afterwards. All of it left little time to update the blog. I should be updating more frequently now. This week I'll be looking at Dr. Jerry Vlasak lying to the Senate back in 2005, and deconstruct a rather amusing, vociferous little anti-hunting diatribe by a corrupt former New Jersey Senator. And I'll continue to examine Gary Francione's goofy AR FAQ's.

PeTA: Still in the animal killing business

noreply@blogger.com (Grizzly Bear) — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:29:00 +0000

Here are some statistics from the Virginia Dept. of Agriculture on PeTA's animal killing activities for 2006. PeTA killed a total of 3,229 animals in 2006. This includes 248 animals classified as wildlife. PeTA adopted out only 12, that's right just 12, companion animals. What's really interesting to me are the statistics concerning wildlife. PeTA returned only one single animal to the wild. Only one. That is an absolutely horrible record compared to some of the wildlife rehabilitation organizations out there. PeTA's hypocrisy on this issue is once again incredulous. PeTA kills more animals in one year, simply as a matter of convenience , than the average hunter will kill in his/her lifetime, and yet it's we hunters who are supposed to be the "bad guy" according to them? The hypocrisy is mind-boggling. PeTA has admitted in the past that it has the resources to actually care for all of the animals it takes in, but it still chooses not to. PeTA would rather spend its 29 million dollar budget on propaganda and cheap publicity stunts than actually caring for animals. To them, it's all about power, money and drawing attention to themselves, folks. How can anyone take an organization seriously that claims animals have rights, but then kills the vast majority of those same animals entrusted to their care?

The good news: Rodney Coronado is going back to jail. The bad news: it isn't for long enough

noreply@blogger.com (Grizzly Bear) — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:36:00 +0000

AR arsonist Rodney Coronado is headed back to jail yet AGAIN. Coronado plead guilty Friday to demonstrating how to create an incendiary device with the intent of having someone else go out and commit a criminal act. Under the plea deal, the judge will be asked to impose a sentence of one year and one day in prison. The maximum sentence would have been twenty years. This is what, the third time now that Coronado has been convicted of a crime? And he only gets a year? How many times will this waste of oxygen be allowed to commit crimes until someone finally throws the book at him? I would think that eventually some kind of habitual criminal law should kick in. Lock this loser up for good. He is obviously incapable of being a productive, responsible citizen.

Deconstructing Gary Francione's FAQ's #2

noreply@blogger.com (Grizzly Bear) — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 02:20:00 +0000

I'm going to move on to question #2 of Gary Francione's animal rights FAQs in this series that I introduced a couple of weeks ago. That post and my analysis of question #1 can be found here. Francione's FAQ's can be read here.

"Question #2: Rights were devised by humans. How can they be applicable to animals?"

The critical question we need to ask ourselves here is "what is the ultimate purpose of rights?". In other words, why do we even have this concept that we call rights? The idea of rights, and I'm speaking specifically of basic rights here, such as the right to life, as opposed to non-basic or political rights, such as the right to vote, is a human created legal construction that protects the individual person's most basic interests. The purpose of rights, however, goes far beyond simply protecting the interest of the individual person. It ultimately extends to protecting the interests of the whole of human society. We grant rights to individual persons because it is ultimately in the best interest of the well being of our species to do so. If we did not do this, chaos within the human community would run rampant. For example, if the right to life, the most basic right of all, did not exist and was not enforceable by the power of law, we could kill each other at any whim with impunity. It doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to figure out that if this was allowed to happen, complete chaos and disorder would run rampant, human civilization would grind to a halt, and the survival of our species would be very much in doubt. From a completely logical, realistic, and rational standpoint, the ultimate purpose of rights seems clear: to protect the well being of our species from our own actions.

How does all this apply to animals? Well, the answer is, it really doesn't. Animals operate in an amoral plane of existence where the only law is the law of natural selection. There are no rights to anything in the existence of the non-human animal. Animals do not have rights that protect them from being used as resources or exploited by other animals. Since that is the case, by what purely rational grounds should they have rights that protect them from being used or exploited by humans, which are animals as well and are just as much a part of the natural biosphere as are non-humans? There really is no logical or rational grounds, and to single out Homo sapiens as the only species that shouldn't be allowed to "exploit" other species is arbitrary and irrational. If a rabbit does not have an inherent right to not be killed and eaten by a hawk, then by what rational grounds should that very same rabbit have a right to not be killed and eaten by a human? The answer is none in reality. A right is a human-created moral or legal claim against another person or persons. Since animals operate in a state of existence where such moral or legal claims do not even exist, let alone are enforceable, it is nonsensical and illogical to suggest that the human created construction of rights is, or should be, applicable to them.

I think it should also be noted here, that in his answer, Francione makes a statement that is really a half-truth in a disingenuous, cynical attempt to defend his weak position. Francione makes the following statement in his answer: "Rights concepts as we currently understand them were actually devised as a way of protecting the interests of wealthy white male land owners; indeed, most moral concepts were historically devised by privileged males to benefit other privileged males.". This is a half-truth that's very misleading and it's highly insulting to the intelligence of his readers. While this statement is certainly true in regards to many political or non-basic rights, it is not true in regards to basic rights, which are, of course the rights we are talking about when we are discussing animal rights. The idea of basic rights can be traced to ancient civilizations. Though none of these codes specifically contain the term "rights", which is a fairly modern term, they certainly contain the concept of it. One of the most famous of these is the Code of Hammurabi from ancient Mesopotamia, circa 1780 b.c.e.. Hammurabi's code laid out laws, and punishments for breaking those laws. Among the issues addressed in Hammurabi's Code were the rights of woman, children, and slaves. The Cyrus Cylinder, considered by some to be the world's oldest true human rights document, was written by the Persian king Cyrus. Among the decrees in this document were the abolishment of slavery and allowing religious freedom in the empire. Another example is ancient Hebrew law, which is the first five books of the Old Testament. One need only read through these books to see that there certainly is a conceptual form of rights, though the term is not explicitly used. And of course, the Greeks and Romans also had rights concepts in their laws as well. An excellent timeline on the history of what we call human rights can be found here. Francione is a law professor. He ought to know exactly what the history of rights is. He is either incredibly ignorant and uneducated on this subject, or he is intentionally trying to mislead the reader; I don't see much other judgment one could make. Neither one is acceptable for someone in his position. Furthermore, in my opinion, his gratuitous use of racial, class, and gender demagoguery is seriously embarrassing to his credibility and only detracts from his argument. I think it speaks volumes about him and the nature of his agenda, but once again, you can make your own call.

"The Onion" video lampoons animal rights

noreply@blogger.com (Grizzly Bear) — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 03:45:00 +0000

I love The Onion. It is consistently one of the funniest bits of satirical genius around. They've put together a little skit mocking AR that is absolutely hysterical. I thought I was going to split a gut when I watched this. I love the "I'm not going to lose another job because of a goddam water buffalo" line. Enjoy!

Pro-AR blog wants ordinance to require a "vegan option" at every restaurant. No, I'm not kidding.

noreply@blogger.com (Grizzly Bear) — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 01:29:00 +0000

This gem may very well qualify as the "animal rights idiocy of the year". Here is a post on the pro-AR AnimalBlawg that must be read to be believed. This blogger has come up with a daft idea that could only come out of the bowels of animal rights idiocy: an ordinance that would require restaurants to have at least one vegan option on their menu. Yep, that's right. This blogger wants to use the power of big government to tell restaurants what food options that they have to offer on their menus. I guess it isn't enough for these control freaks to have regulations that tell restaurants what they CAN'T serve, such as the Chicago foie gras ban, but now, in her mind, we must also have regulations that tell restaurants what they MUST serve. I can't help but wonder if such an ordinance would also apply to restaurants that really specialize in serving primarily meat, such as steak houses or barbecue joints, for example. What is the likelihood that vegans would patronize such establishments anyway? I have long made the claim that animal rights isn't about animals so much as it is about control, coercion, and social engineering. This is yet further evidence. I have a better idea. How about we let the power of good, old-fashioned free markets decide what restaurants serve? If vegan food becomes popular in a certain locale, then wouldn't restaurants that serve such fare begin to appear just because market forces would dictate it? Seems so to me, and no big government is required! This is just another example of how some ARAs seek to use the power of the state to control, dictate, and regulate. Why is it that some people think the solution to every "problem" ( in this case a "problem" that is only a product of her own mind! ) is more government, more laws, and more regulations? Sad. Very sad.

ALF plants fake bomb at medical school

noreply@blogger.com (Grizzly Bear) — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 00:58:00 +0000

The Animal Liberation Front ( ALF ) has claimed responsibility for a bomb threat at the medical school at the University of California San Diego ( UCSD ). A fake bomb was planted at the campus of the UCSD medical school Wednesday, causing the buildings to be evacuated. According to one report the device was "covered with bullets". The FBI and the Joint Terrorism Task Force are investigating. Let's see. Here we have ALF planting a phony bomb on a college campus, causing research buildings to be evacuated. Sounds like it certainly qualifies as an act of terrorism to me. I would challenge any ALF apologist to make a coherent, convincing argument that this doesn't qualify as an act of terrorism. I'm not holding my breath. I'm also not holding my breath that you will here any of this condemned on any pro-AR blog or website.

Comments from "Warwak"

noreply@blogger.com (Grizzly Bear) — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:16:00 +0000

Yesterday, a commenter who is posting anonymously, but calling himself "Warwak" left some comments in response to comments from someone else. The whole thread can be read her e. I'm assuming that this "Warwak" is in fact fired vega-vangelist teacher Dave Warwak whom I have blogged about multiple times. This same person has left these kind of "pot-shot" comments here before. Some of them I have published, others I have rejected simply to save "Warwak" the embarrassment of their inaneness, such as "you're killing my friends", for example. Mr. Warwak, if this person is you, and I have every reason to believe it is, since the style and content of these comments matches your rhetoric, would you care to actually debate the issue of animal rights with me? I am more than happy to engage you in rational debate based on reason and critical thinking, either here on this blog, or in another forum. Instead of taking pot-shots in old, buried posts at me or other readers, have some intellectual courage and let's debate the subject.
Just for fun, let's dissect some of the statements made by "Warwak":

"Yes, this is a monstrous Holocaust and is responsible for MOST of our problems. "

The first thing the reader should notice is Warwak's misuse of the term "Holocaust". The word "Holocaust", when used with a capitol "H" refers to one thing, and one thing only: the Nazi Holocaust. Warwak's apparent inability to use words properly puts his credibility in doubt, as far as I'm concerned, especially considering this is someone who is supposed to be teaching our young people. Beyond that though, it shows just what the basic mindset of ARAs is. To the animal rights mind, the life of an animal and the life of a human are of equal moral worth. That is why they incorrectly use terms like "Holocaust" in reference to slaughtering animals for food. In their world view, if murdering millions of Jews and others is morally wrong, then it must also be equally morally wrong to kill billions of animals for food. This, of course, is patently absurd and irrational because they are failing to make the distinction between the vicious murder of people for no other reasons than hatred and racism, and the simple utilitarian use of animals for food, and such inane reasoning shouldn't fly with the thinking person.
In the second part of this goofy statement, Warwak makes the comment that the use of animals for food, etc. is "responsible for MOST of our problems". Where is the support for such a statement? He offers none at all. Furthermore, what problems is he talking about? He doesn't say. How do you even define "MOST of our problems"? Not a very objective or specific term is it? To blame "MOST" of the problems that plague the human race on one specific thing is exceptionally poor reasoning. It is grossly simplistic, as most people recognize that most problems are complex and have multiple roots and factors that often vary from problem to problem. But alas, simplistic people love simplistic reasoning don't they?

"It really is about peace, love, and compassion for all."

Except, of course, for the animals that are killed and harmed so that vegans and ARAs can continue to live the lifestyle they enjoy, while arrogantly claiming faux moral high ground. The lives and the "rights" of these animals are swept under the rug, so that the ARAs hope you don't notice their hypocrisy. Out of sight and out of mind. I wonder if Warwak has ever stopped to consider how his use of an electrically powered computer to get on blogs and pontificate to others about the supposed evils of their lifestyles effects the suffering and death of animals. Don't count on it.

On hunting and an honest relationship with the world

noreply@blogger.com (Grizzly Bear) — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:03:00 +0000

Recently, on a pro-AR blog, the blogger commented, and I'm paraphrasing here, that, in his opinion, that by going vegan, one enters into a more honest relationship with the world. This is a comment that piqued my thoughts. I began to consider that, in fact, it is not the vegan who has the most honest relationship with the world around them, but rather it is the hunter. Few understand the circle of life and sustenance, which always includes death, better than the hunter. In this natural world in which we live, life must feed upon life in order for life to continue. That is the natural way of things. It has been this way since before the evolution of humankind, and it will be this way long after we have gone extinct. This cycle of life consuming life is not evil or immoral, it simply is reality. When one hunts, one becomes an active part of this cycle in the most intimate and connected of ways. By doing the stalking, the killing, the preparation, and then the eating, the hunter comes to develop a true relationship with the natural world that is far more honest and fulfilling than the vast majority of humanity will ever experience. Few, save for those that raise and slaughter their own domesticated animals (and to some extent, those who grow and harvest their own fruits/vegetables) , understand where their food comes from, or the nature of the cycle of life, quite like the hunter does. The masses that purchase meat at the super market don't experience this honest relationship because the realities of the cycle of life are largely hidden from them; they simply are purchasing a convenient finished product. They miss out on the honest relationship with the world mostly through ignorance ( sometimes willful ), or laziness. The ARA/"ethical vegan" also misses out on a truly honest relationship with the world, and indeed has a DISHONEST relationship with it, but for a different reason. It comes in the form of denial about, or disdain for, the natural ways of this world. This denial or disdain can be either conscious or subconscious. In my experience, The ARA/"ethical vegan" frequently yearns for a world in which there is no "exploitation" ( they sometimes call such a vision a "peaceable kingdom" in AR-speak ), and they often seem to believe that they can make this world vision a reality through their lifestyle choices. This, of course, is not realistic, and is a form of Utopianism. And as is often proven time and time again, there are few relationships, whether they be between people and other people, or people and the world around them, that are more dishonest, and often more destructive and dangerous, than those based upon Utopian visions.

Dennis Kucinich schmoozes AR leaders

noreply@blogger.com (Grizzly Bear) — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 00:29:00 +0000

Given we're coming upon a major election year, here's a video that should be watched. Congressman Dennis "cuckoo" Kucinich ( D-OH ), a Presidential candidate, can be seen in this twenty minute video schmoozing with animal rights leaders in a conference call. It is nauseating to see Kucinich and the ARAs pandering to each other in this way, but I think it's important to see just what kind of radicals that this man, who wants to be our President, identifies with. If you are a sportsman, farmer/rancher, supporter of bio-medical research, or just want your freedom to make your own lifestyle choices to be respected, be very, very wary of this guy. How someone this radically leftist and out of touch continues to get elected is beyond me.

Deconstructing Gary Francione's FAQs #1

noreply@blogger.com (Grizzly Bear) — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 13:54:00 +0000

A pro-AR "abolitionist" reader recently challenged me to debunk Prof. Gary Francione's twenty animal rights FAQs. He did this in manner that struck me as somewhat smug and arrogant, as if Francione's opinions are somehow holy gospel and unassailable. I've decided to start a new series here in which I will deconstruct all twenty of Francione's FAQs. I will not be doing these all in row, but will be blogging on other things, and doing these from time to time, perhaps maybe one a week or every two weeks. The first thing readers will need to do is read through Francione's FAQs. They can be found here. The first thing I noticed about this FAQ, and perhaps you have as well, is that some of the questions that Francione asks himself seem to be perhaps "spun" or "loaded" in such a way so that he can indulge himself in circular reasoning. He words the questions in such a way so that he can give exactly the answer he wants to give,and wants you to hear. This is common in my experience in these "FAQs" where any kind of ideological, religious or political agenda is involved. Keep that in mind as we go through them. Let's get started and look at question #1.

"1. Question: Domestic animals, such as cows and pigs, and laboratory rats would not exist, were it not for our bringing them into existence in the first place for our purposes. So, is it not the case we are free to treat them as our resources?"

In his answer, you will notice that Francione goes on to use an analogy about using children as resources. He makes the following statements: "The fact that we are in some sense responsible for the existence of a being does not give us the right to treat that being as our resource. Were that so, then we could treat our children as resources.". This argument fails on a couple of fronts. First off, is the fact, that in reality, we DO in fact treat our children as resources in some respects. When I was kid, my parents used to make me do household chores such as mowing the lawn, shoveling snow, washing the dishes, etc. Also, anyone who grew up on a family farm or ranch knows how hard they worked to help keep things going for the family. There are also examples that don't involve contribution to the family. The Girl Scouts sell cookies every year as a fund raiser. The girls go door to door, or set up shop in front of a public place, and work to sell cookies. These are all examples of treating children as resources. Children are providing labor for either the benefit of their family or an organization that they belong to. Francione's answer implies that it is always morally wrong to use children as resources. Using his logic, however, all the things I mentioned above, would, in fact, be immoral because they all, in reality, use children as resources. The notion of kids mowing lawns or selling cookies to help an organization they belong to, being immoral, is of course, patently absurd. The question here isn't whether it is right or wrong to use children as resources, but rather, what should be the rational moral limits of using children as resources.

This analogy also fails on a second front. The astute reader will notice that what Francione is implying here, is that if it is immoral to use children as resources, then it must also be immoral to use animals as resources. Yet, he makes absolutely no argument here to support such a claim. He offers the reader no rational, convincing reason as to why children and animals should receive the same moral treatment. None at all. When drawing his analogy, he simply seems to ASSUME that children and animals are ENTITLED to the same moral consideration, as if it is some kind of self-evident fact, which of course it is not. He utterly fails to give a single reason why animals and children should be afforded the same treatment and it's glaringly vacuous.

The astute reader should also notice the intellectual slight of hand that Francione utilizes in the second paragraph of his answer. In the second paragraph, Francione talks about the immorality of treating people as property. However, the original question was about treating animals as RESOURCES, not about treating them as PROPERTY and the two are not the same thing. What Francione has done is subtly tried to shift the argument from the question of treating animals as resources to a question of treating animals as property. This is a straw man fallacy. A straw man fallacy is a logical fallacy in which a person attacks or introduces an argument different from, or irrelevant to, the original subject. Francione's second paragraph of his answer qualifies as fallacious, because, as I stated, treating someone as a resource, and treating them as property are not one and the same. The two are separate arguments. We treat people as resources all the time and it is not considered immoral. For example, if you have a job, you are a resource to your employer because you provide labor for them. Indeed, most large business have departments dedicated to managing personnel that are usually called "human resources departments". Although you may be considered a resource by your employer, you are not your employer's property. Rather, you are a person of free will that can choose to leave your employment any time. In our society, treating a person as a resource is not necessarily immoral, but treating a person as property always is. In his answer, Francione either fails to make that distinction himself, or he is intentionally being intellectually dishonest, and hopes that his readers don't notice the distinction. You make your own call.

Happy Thanksgiving

noreply@blogger.com (Grizzly Bear) — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:19:00 +0000

I want to wish all of you a Happy Thanksgiving today. Today is a day to contemplate how fortunate we are to live in a land of liberty and prosperity, and to celebrate the earth's bountiful provision. My wife Stephanie and I are fortunate to have a nice home, good jobs, etc.. We are only so fortunate because of this land of liberty and opportunity in which we live, and for that, I am grateful. Stephanie and I will be hosting both her parents as well as mine at our home today. We'll be foregoing the traditional turkey in favor of roasting some wild ducks that I got while enjoying quality time in a frigid duck blind with my dad and two wet, smelly dogs a few weeks ago. We'll be enjoying our day, and I hope you will too. Eat, drink, and be merry, and enjoy time with family and friends, for life is short.

Grizz

AR idiocy in the news......

noreply@blogger.com (Grizzly Bear) — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:01:00 +0000

AR lunatics threaten to destroy golf course with heavy equipment over duck cull

A golf course in Australia has been threatened to be damaged with a backhoe because they culled ducks that were damaging the greens. No, I'm not making this up. There's really nothing I can say about this latest round of animal rights lunacy that it doesn't say for itself. This story is funny, but it is also very sobering at the same time, because I think it is indicative of a society that is unfortunately becoming more hyper-emotional and less rational all the time. That some people would be willing to commit criminal property damage, and thus risking their freedom and other rights, their job, their reputation, etc. over a simple cull of a few wild ducks is baffling to me. I honestly cannot comprehend such irrational behavior. The growing over-the-top emotionalism of society is a scary thing.

Yet another frivolous PCRM lawsuit dismissed

A class action lawsuit brought by Physicians' Committee for Responsible Medicine board member Dr. Milton Mills against dairy sellers has been dismissed by a federal appellate court. The lawsuit sought to have warning labels regarding lactose intolerance placed on dairy products. The court rightly found that the minor discomfort that goes with lactose intolerance is not sufficient grounds to award damages. I love this quote from the courts ruling: "A bout of gas or indigestion does not justify a race to the courthouse." Indeed. If I had a dollar for every time that the ideological hacks posing as a medical group at PCRM abused our legal system with its frivolous, agenda-driven litigation, I could retire right now and spend the rest of my life fishing. How many time will this boy be allowed to cry wolf before the courts stop listening?

The actual court ruling, in PDF format, can be viewed here.

A truly sanctimonious, crazed celebrity activist

noreply@blogger.com (Grizzly Bear) — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 14:01:00 +0000

Like probably many others, I despise celebrity activists. Not only are they condescending and insulting to the intelligence, they are also generally "rebels without a clue", as well as incredibly sanctimonious and hypocritical. Such is the case with Heather Mills, vegan activist and estranged wife of AR zealot and ex-Beatle Paul McCartney. Earlier this week, Mills stormed out of a radio interview, drove to London's Hyde Park in a Mercedes SUV, then launched into a bizarre diatribe about the alleged ecological dangers of livestock, in which she actually asked "why don't we drink rat's milk?". Apparently, Mills didn't bother to think about how one would actually milk a small animal like a rat, nor the fact that an animal that size would produce such a minute amount of it that it would be useless. Additionally, for some reason, Mills let the gas-guzzling SUV continue to idle while she was giving her self-serving little screed.
Here we have a pompous, narcissistic, pampered celebrity pontificating to others about how they are supposedly destroying the planet with their eating habits, after showing up in a fuel-inefficient vehicle that she lets idle while giving her sermon! The hypocrisy of that is so incredulous, that one is really at a loss for words. It's right up there with that elitist Al Gore telling us serfs that it is us driving our cars to work that is the problem, while he continues to trot the globe in a kerosene-guzzling private jet, and owns a home that uses more electricity in a month than most of us use in a year.
I have long wondered what is going on with environmental and AR crusaders, from the common everyday ones to the celebrities and elitists, in regards to their own hypocrisies. Is there something psychologically that blinds them to it, so they are not able to see it, even though it is apparent to everyone else? Perhaps that is the case with some. More often, though, it seems that many simply try to rationalize their own hypocrisy, as can be clearly seen if one reads various pro-AR blogs, as well as some of the comments from ARAs that have been left here at this blog. In my experience, ARAs and green crusaders tend to be privileged and well off in comparison to the rest of the world. They enjoy the luxuries that their life affords, but at the same time they seem to have a psychological need to feel morally superior to others. Thus they rationalize their own actions in an attempt to maintain their facade of moral piety. I can't help but wonder if a shrink would have a field day with Ms. Mills and her ilk.

More animal rights idiocy du jour

noreply@blogger.com (Grizzly Bear) — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 03:06:00 +0000

I think this little bit of animal rights idiocy speaks for itself. Apparently in this person's warped world, insulting a pigeon is "much like using the n-word". Right. Calling a pigeon "a flying rat" is akin to using one of the ugliest racial slurs there is? I bet she also believes killing chickens for food is on the same moral plane as the Holocaust. And these nuts want to be taken seriously?

The animal rights idiocy du jour

noreply@blogger.com (Grizzly Bear) — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:34:00 +0000

There is a letter that an ARA, one Arthur Poletti, wrote addressed to his Congressional representatives ( Senators Barack Obama and Dick Durbin and Representative Dan Lapinski ) that has been published on the pro-AR all-creatures.org website that really is a must read. This letter is a rambling, shrill diatribe that provides some insight into the mindset of some ARAs. It is so full of petty lust for power over other people's lives, crackpot "the sky is falling" scenarios, and patent absurdities, that is extremely entertaining, as well as utterly nauseating, at the same time. Let's take a look at some of these crown jewels of absurdity and moonbattery that Mr. Poletti is offering us and his politicians.

"The human race cannot run away from or escape the consequences of global warming. Monumental cataclysmic disasters that are going to continue happening unless the wisest, practical, and most realistic solution is implemented immediately, if not sooner!"

Here we see Mr. Poletti talking about "monumental cataclysmic disasters" that are, in his world at least, going to happen if, of course, we don't ban animal agriculture right now. Of course, like all self-anointed gloom and doom prophets throughout history, he doesn't back up his cataclysmic scenarios with anything resembling undeniable facts. Also check out the last line, where he says "immediately, if not sooner". What is sooner than immediately? Absolutely hysterical!

"If government leaders do not begin to write emergency legislation designed to pass laws removing animal flesh from the food chain soon then humans, animals, and the earth will be confronted with the continuous escalation of widespread nonstop mega catastrophes!"

Ah, here we're getting to the meat ( pun intended ) of Mr. Poletti's agenda. What Mr Poletti wants is to use the power of the state, in the name of impending doom of course, to further erode people's liberties, in this case the freedom of choice regarding one's diet. The notion that people should surrender more of their liberties to the state to fend off some impending doom is a lie that tyrants of all stripes have used since the dawn of tyranny itself. And so it continues to this day.

"Removing animal flesh from the food chain may be the only realistic, viable, manageable, enforceable, and most effective government solution immediately needed to slow down global warming, and to ultimately play the largest role in stopping it."

Trying to ban animal based foods is not "realistic", "viable", or "enforceable". In case Mr. Poletti isn't yet aware of it, we have tried prohibitionist policies in the past, and they are monumental failures. For example, if we can't realistically and viably enforce laws banning the production and use of marijuana, then how are we ever going to realistically and viably enforce laws banning the production and use of meat, especially when one considers there are many more meat eaters than there are pot smokers!? Albert Einstein once said that "the very definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result". Mr. Poletti seems to fit that bill as he seems intent in his desire to cling to failed policies of the past.

"Global warming is potentially the most formidable, seemingly impregnable, possibly unstoppable deadly force in the history of the world."

It may very well be unstoppable, especially if all or most of it is natural in nature. The fact that Mr. Poletti seems to forget in all his doomsday prophecy is that, throughout its long ages, the earth has been both much hotter, and much colder, than it is now, and life on this planet managed to survive it.

"During the next few years a large number of countries will likely be engulfed in any one or many of the following calamities.

A constant escalation of heat waves, violent torrential storms, hurricanes, catastrophic flooding, cyclones, earthquakes, tsunamis, uncontrolled wild fires, draughts, famines, diseases, and starvation."

This one is really funny. We've all seen global warming alarmists seemingly blame everything from hot days to cold days to bad hair days on climate change. But EARTHQUAKES and TSUNAMIS? Earthquakes, and the tsunamis that can follow them, of course are caused by the movement of the earth's tectonic plates. Notice that Mr. Poletti offers no evidence that climate change affects the movement of these plates, which have been in motion since the beginning of time, and will always continue to be so. What an absolute riot!

These are just a few choice samplings of Mr. Poletti's absurdities. There are many more that seem to go on, and on, and on. Enjoy the laugh, folks!

Hypocrisy, thy name is Ingrid Newkirk

noreply@blogger.com (Grizzly Bear) — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:49:00 +0000

There as been a lot of discussion here recently about the inherent hypocrisy of so many in the animal rights community. I don't think that hypocrisy is any more evident than in a recent story involving none other than Ingrid Newkirk, founder and president of PeTA. According to an October 30 post on PeTA's blog, Ms. Newkirk recently broke her wrist in a fall. What's interesting here is this quote from Ms. Newkirk: "Thank goodness for IV ( intravenous ) drips." Yes, indeed, thank goodness for them, but does Ms. Newkirk have so much a clue as to the history of IV use ? The intravenous system of medication delivery was first developed in the 1930's. It was tested intensively on various kinds of animals including monkeys and dogs. Not only was the IV technique tested extensively on animals, but of course so are the drugs that are used in it. So here we have one of the kingpins of the animal rights industry, being more than willing to enjoy the benefits of animal research for herself when she is in pain, but continuing to pontificate to the world about the supposed evils of animal research, not to mention disseminating all kinds of distortions and lies about how supposedly useless and unnecessary it is. ARAs may try to rationalize, spin, and justify such a thing, as they do with all of their hypocrisies, but the bottom line is still the same: it is utterly one of the most debased forms of hypocrisy there is. Beyond that, however, it is incredibly selfish. For Ms. Newkirk to accept the fruits of past animal research for herself, all the while wishing and trying to deny others the fruits of current and future research is about the height of arrogance and selfishness. Par for the course for the typical animal rights advocate.

Response to pro-AR comments

noreply@blogger.com (Grizzly Bear) — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 04:54:00 +0000

I will get back to the discussion about "loaded AR terminology" in the next post ( hopefully! ). A pro-AR reader, Claudio, recently left some comments about the incidental deaths of wild animals that occur in crop agriculture, which I think is a dilemma of hypocrisy for ideological vegans who like to claim they live a "cruelty-free lifestyle" and like to use that as some kind of unjustified moral bludgeon against other people. Recently, he also smugly challenged me to "feel free to debunk it". As I have done before, I like to move pro-AR comments that I think are of some value to the forefront so readers can read them, and my response, without having to dive into old, dated posts. Claudio's remarks, and the original post he was responding to, can be found here. I'm not going to reproduce Claudio's comments in full here, simply for the reason they are lengthy, so please read them in the original thread.

"However, there are exceptional circumstances where incidental deaths of right-bearers are not punished and can be considered as a necessary evil. For instance, in an exclusively human context, the air pollution caused by human activities kills a great number of people and has severe consequences on the health of many more."

The analogy Claudio is using here is not a good one. In fact, it utterly fails. The fact of the matter is, polluters can be, and in fact are, punished under the law. Government regulations require pollution controls on everything from cars to power plants. If industries fail to implement controls or exceed the amount of pollution specified by law, they can face criminal charges and large fines. In some instances, even city governments can be fined, or face loss of federal subsidies for various things, if they exceed a certain number of "smog days". Drivers of cars that don't pass emissions tests are required to repair them so that they do, or face fines. Polluters are compelled by law to rectify the problem and they can continue to face ongoing consequences until they do. The reason we have these laws is because, as Claudio stated, pollution has a negative impact on the health of people, who are rights-holding beings. The laws are intended to minimize, as much as possible, the impact pollution has on people. This is not the case with incidental animal deaths in crop agriculture. Outside of perhaps endangered species laws, which are designed to protect only certain species, there are no laws that exist that even so much as attempt to protect animals from being harmed in crop agriculture. And of course, you will hear no ARA clamoring for there to be so, even though these supposedly "rights-holding beings" such as birds, insects, and rodents are killed by the thousands, if not millions, in industrialized crop agriculture. You see, for the majority of ARAs, their own complicity in animal suffering and death is a matter of "hear no evil, see no evil". Why? Because no one like to face their own hypocrisy. At the most, some will make rather transparent attempts to justify or rationalize their complicity with weak arguments, as Claudio has done here. If animals are "rights holding beings", do we not owe it to them to implement laws that at least try to save as many of them as possible from a cruel death at the hands of industrialized crop agriculture? It would seem so if we are going to claim animals have rights and we are going to be morally and intellectually consistent with what we say we believe. If it was millions of human children, rather than millions of sparrows and field mice, that were being killed by crop agriculture, would Claudio and his fellow ARAs demand that something be done right now to stop it, like most rational people would, or would they simply blow it off as "collateral damage" or "a necessary evil" as they do with animals that are killed? If animals hold the same basic rights, such as the right to life, as do human children, then how can they possibly dismiss the deaths of the animals if they would not dismiss the deaths of the children? This is why animal rights is such an intellectually bankrupt and ethically vacuous position: it has a flawed foundation of self-serving, selective moral outrage that results in blatant hypocrisy.

"As I stated in another forum, non-human animals will never be members of human society, because their lack of moral agency, so they can’t engage in a human social contract."

Which is precisely the reason animals do not have rights. The concept of rights is nothing more than a kind of social and legal contract that has been devised by humans to help maintain order and protection for people in human society. It helps protect us from chaotic, destructive behavior that would have negative impacts on the survival and well-being of our species. It is really nothing more ( unless, of course, one subscribes to some kind of "natural rights theory", which I reject because it is logically indefensible ). Animals operate in an amoral plane of existence in which the human-derived concept of rights is irrelevant. Rights have no use, and no meaning to, non-human animals, because it doesn't fit into the nature of their existence and not even the most intelligent of them can grasp the concept.

"In this aspect, they are like the marginal human cases."

Animals are nothing like marginal human cases. A marginal human case is a case in which a human is either permanently or temporarily incapacitated from being a moral agent. There is a huge difference though, between a marginal human and an animal. If the human were not incapacitated or disabled, they would be a moral agent, because moral agency is a general characteristic of humans. That is not true for animals. Even the most intelligent, fully functioning animal does not possess even the potential to be a moral agent. Moral agency is a characteristic of humanity. Just because that characteristic is "broken" in some individuals, that doesn't mean it ceases to be a general characteristic of humans. Suppose we have a car that doesn't run because it's engine doesn't start. Just because our car is incapacitated and doesn't work properly , it doesn't mean that it no longer possesses all the basic characteristics of a car. It would run if we were able to fix it. It isn't a kitchen sink, a TV set, or a chair. It is still a car because it still has all the basic characteristics of a car. Likewise, marginal humans retain all the basic attributes of humans, including basic rights, because they are still humans that are simply in a disabled state, in which their moral agency isn't functioning, that may be either permanent or temporary.

"(because since they are sentient they are right-bearers)"

A statement of opinion and not of fact. I have yet to see a convincing, rock-solid argument from Claudio, or any other ARA, including their beloved Gary Francione, as to why "sentience" is a valid criterion that should trump all other criteria for determining what is, and what is not, a rights holder.

AR idiocy in the news......

noreply@blogger.com (Grizzly Bear) — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 22:41:00 +0000

The Animal Liberation Front ( ALF ) , a domestic terrorist organization, has claimed responsibility for an attack on the home of Dr. Edythe London, a professor and researcher at UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine. The vandals flooded Prof. London's home with a garden hose, doing $20,000-$40,000 worth of damage. In a rather courageous act, Prof. London wrote a response to the attack that has run in today's Los Angeles Times. In this response, Professor London outlines the work she is doing and why animal use is important to it. Professor London's calm, well-reasoned response to the ALF terrorists is, IMHO, nothing short of awesome. Prof. London has done a tremendous service to the research community here, because her response shows scientists to be the reasoned, rational people they are, while making the ALF thugs look like exactly what they are: cracked lunatics who think they have a right to terrorize others and commit criminal acts in the name of their ideology. Big time kudos to Professor London for putting out this courageous response to the ALF dirtbags.

In another story, a New Jersey appellate court has dismissed a lawsuit against Huntington Life Sciences ( HLS ), a pharmaceutical testing firm, by the New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ( NJSPCA ) . NJSPCA sued Huntington for allegedly causing unnecessary pain and suffering to animals, and had sought restitution from the company. The court rightly dismissed the case, because HLS has no legal obligations to NJSPCA, and thus there is no grounds for a claim of restitution. Seems to me like a frivolous lawsuit in which an animal advocacy group was trying to use the legal system as way to steal money from a legitimate business that it happens to dislike. I'm certainly no law expert, but I can't help but wonder, and hope, that perhaps this case will set a precedent in cutting off AR groups and their lawyers that hope use litigation "on behalf of animals" in the future as part of their strategy.

A potentially interesting discussion

noreply@blogger.com (Grizzly Bear) — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:26:00 +0000

There are two people who are working on their Master's degrees in conflict resolution that will be holding an on-line discussion between pro-AR folks and anti-AR folks as part of some research they are doing. This is not a debate, but rather a discussion on why each side thinks the way the do. Perhaps we can all learn something of value from this. If you would be interested in participating, go to this thread at the AR.net discussion forum and post letting them know. Please also let them know if you are pro or anti AR. Details about the time will be forthcoming in that thread.

Thinking critically about AR terminology Part 1

noreply@blogger.com (Grizzly Bear) — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 13:38:00 +0000

In some recent comments, an anonymous commenter noted the use of "loaded words" in rhetoric from ARAs. I agreed with this person and threw out some examples. While on a hunting trip, I got thinking more about that issue while spending contemplative time in my tree stand, so I though I'd explore it a little more in depth.

First, I think it is helpful to determine what "loaded words" or "loaded terminology" is and why it is used. "Loaded terminology" is terminology that generally contains biased and/or emotionally charged words. The purpose of it is to to use said biased or emotionally charged words to bend people's opinions. "Loaded terminology" is often used in argumentum ad nauseam fallacies. This simply means that someone repeats an argument or term so often, that those listening eventually no longer question or think critically about the argument or term's validity. We see ARAs do this with the terms I'm going to take a look at. By using these terms, they hope that those who hear or read their rhetoric simply accept these terms at face value without questioning them. However, much to their chagrin, not everyone is that stupid or easily lead.

"Loaded term" Number 1: "Vivisection"

"Vivisection" is perhaps the loaded AR term that one encounters most often. ARAs often use this as a blanket or umbrella term to refer to scientific research utilizing animals. But is that fair or intellectually honest? The word "vivisection" comes from Latin and it literally means cutting up a living thing. The emotional charge of this word is pretty self-evident. What we need to ask is whether its use is accurate in most cases. Does all, or even most, scientific research using animals involve procedures that are gruesome enough to justify the use of such a graphic term? Hardly it would seem. According to U.S. Department of Agriculture ( this is the federal agency that oversees animal research ) data, 60% of animal tests only involve slight, momentary, or minor distress such as injections, blood draws, change of diet, etc. . With 3 out of 5 procedures utilizing animals requiring only minor invasiveness, or none at all, the blanket or generalized use, as well as plain overuse of a "loaded term" like vivisection is dishonest and misleading at best.

In part two of this post, I'll analyze some more common AR terminology.