Monday, 14th April 2008
Animals: Slaving or serving? (1)
It says a lot when people have to resort to misrepresentation to "prove" a point. Raymond Zammit (Hunting Dogs And Slavery, April 5) says that I claim that we should set all "domesticated" animals free. Then he contradicts himself a few lines down by quoting me as saying that "we should... not set all dogs free where they cannot cope on their own".
While Mr Zammit's claim that according to me, anyone owning a pet shop is a slave trader is true, it does not follow that anyone owning a pet is a slave owner, or any vet is a slave doctor. This is clear from my claim that we should care for the "domesticated" animals already in existence. Some people adopt homeless non-human animals for altruistic reasons (ask the animal sanctuaries), and not simply to have them as possessions.
As regards Mr Zammit's "worry" about the extinction of "domesticated" animals, he falls in the same trap as has Mark Mifsud Bonnici (April 1). Since I am not suggesting that any animal be killed, it follows that by claiming a right of "not-yet-existent" animals to exist, he would be advocating the "right" of sperm to become animals.
A non-existent "animal" has no "right" neither to exist nor to not exist. The thinking that it would somehow go against rights not to bring animals into existence would bring us to the absurd conclusion that humans have an active duty to have as many offspring as possible (since doing otherwise would deny millions of sperm their opportunity to become human).
Mr Zammit worries about animals bred to be slaughtered for meat, becoming extinct. I would think that such animals would rather prefer not having lived at all, than living a short miserable life that is ended by the knife (not to mention their offspring taken away, being constantly raped to produce offspring for slaughter, etc). But then again, logic is not the speciesist's forte. The only reason why such people are surprised at my views, saying things like "how's that for championing animal rights" only goes to show they have absolutely no idea on the issues. I would suggest a list of books that may be found at www.animalrightsmalta.blogspot.com.
Mr Zammit replies to my question regarding how dogs can be expected to hunt high-flying birds by themselves. His answer, much to my satisfaction, is that they can't.
Regarding hunting being the purpose of hunting dogs or else we would not call them so, Mr Zammit should note that pre-abolition slave traders also claimed that to be slaves is black people's purpose in life, and that it is right and proper it should be so, otherwise one would not be justified in calling them slaves.
However, just as calling slaves so does not make it justified to treat them as slaves, similarly, calling dogs hunting dogs does not necessarily make it justified to use them as hunting dogs. The treatment of anyone as property makes that someone a slave.
RSS
Comments
Does it matter if a taxonomic group no longer exists, as long as all the animals that once belonged to it were treated with respect to their individual existence? Mr Cassar’s position is not that we should pretend they don’t exist and leave them be, but stop exploiting them now and care for them as best as possible when they can’t live life on their own. Exploiting animals for the sake of keeping a species going is nonsense, a species is just a group, it feels no pain, individuals do.
“Or when stating that animals are raped and that anyone might be advocating the right of sperm to become animals. Indeed Mr. Cassar, stop preaching rubbish.”
When does Mr. Cassar “preach” that sperm have the right to become animals? Sperm are not sentient, they’re don’t even have a whole set of DNA! This animal rights position is that all animals, having sentience and valuing their own existence (instead of only being valued by others) have rights, not that non-aware matter that may become an animal has rights. If the latter was true, then we’d also have to reject contraception, it could even be a crime not to reproduce! Stop rubbishing Mr. Cassar’s argument by misrepresenting it.
Says it all, really. The dog, to a speciesist, is just an object (property) just as a car is.
Anyone who blasts birds for fun cannot comprehend the validity of Kenneth’s contributions.
I again invite Mark to get back to the core issue that if the objective is to keep on killing unprotected birds (presumably for food not for fun) in Autumn, it is better to eradicate and weed out the criminals who are hunting down protected species.
You see, a dog is not like a car or 'other' thing you might wish to possess.
Possessions .... some decades ago, not far too long ago, mind, the white man wanted to possess other men, and hence, slavery. Then, man himself wanted to possess the female species, and so we had sexism. We still have one way to go: eradicate 'possession' of animals. Animals are there, today, in order for man to protect and defend them.
We have to realise that in order for mankind to be at one with nature, this is the only way forward.
Respectfully, Mr MMB, your last words betrayed not only you but all those, hunters included, who do not respect the life of the animal.
Man has to 'kill' animals as a last resort, sir. That is the only way to show respect also to ourselves.
But then, perhaps, these thoughts are simply beyond some people, aren't they?
Mr Farrugia when did anyone go "around wielding chains and threatening to blow up the country."
Also if you know anything about dogs you might realize that breeding has perfected certain instincts in dogs that are of great use to us humans. Why is it that gun dogs are used to hunt game. Retrievers to fetch game, Guide dogs to lead the blind. etc. etc. Mongrels do not have these required capabilities. I fully agree with you that dog sanctuaries are to be given importance and I support all those who contribute to make these work. However i fail to see you point in condemning the sale of dogs. this in no way can be considered as being exploitation at the dogs expense therefore I see no objection in paying for what i want, being a car, dog or other.
Mark Mifsud Bonnici, vegetables and plants have no brain or central nervous systems. Plants, though alive, are not sentient and have no experiences (which require brains).
Andrew Gatt, I know that "my" ideas (actually several books by philosophers and other academics have been written on the topic) can be difficult to grasp, especially since we are habitually indoctrinated to believe that non-human animals were "created" for human use. However, I encourage you to keep trying. I have a list of books on my website, if you're interested (I don't get any commission from sales, don't worry).
In what way are my views intolerant, when they are only intended for the reader to use his own mind and think for himself whether what I say makes sense or not.
I would rather think that it is the taking of life (hunting) that is intolerant.
If I convince anyone to stop abusing or killing non-human animals, that person will do so out of his own free will.
On the otherhand, by killing non-human animals, you deny them any free-will of their own.
Also, how can YOU be expected to be taken seriously when you have not yet realized (it does not take a university degree to understand this) that to say that a non-existent animal has the right to exist is the same as saying that sperm has the right to become an animal?
Yes, for one to claim that sperm has a right to become an animal is absurd. But you will be surprised to learn (if you think hard enough, you will make it) that your reasoning seems to suggest this.
Furthermore, you find absurd my claim that non-humans can be raped. If you do your research, you will find that non-human animals are habitually raped in farms and breeding facilities. It is no coincidence that a contraption for this purpose (used on cows) is called a "rape-rack".
As for www.animalrightsmalta.blogspot.com providing amusement (another free advert), I'm glad if I can make people smile, unlike some others who would rather destroy lives.
It does not make sense to continue breeding pedigrees, for the simple reason that in doing so, we are using animals for our personal financial reasons.
I always tell my friends NEVER to buy animals - but to get a dog, or a cat, from some sanctuary.
Mr Mifsud Bonnici, our few sanctuaries in Malta and Gozo are full to the brim with strays. In the meantime, mostly-egoistic breeders continue using their animals in their homes and breed them all the time in order to have puppies to sell. I am sorry - I am against this practice.
You do not 'own' a dog or cat for social status, similar to owning a luxurious car for the sake of the Joneses! You have a dog or cat at home because you love animals and you want to live with animals.
Finally, I think it is rich of Mr Mifsud Bonnici to call others 'intolerant'. Take a good look around you and you will know who is being intolerant. Animal-lovers do not go around wielding chains and threatening to blow up the country.
Mr. Farrugia might also question, what right does man have to earn money from selling vegetables? The selling of meat and vegetables is a normal accepted practice. Maybe not for Mr. Farrugia.!
If he also condemns this he might have a problem finding food to eat unless he grows his own, or does he expect to get both meat and vegatables for free.
the selling of pets, does not have any bearing on their welfare. So here too I fail to see his point.
Obviously, it is so. .... animals should NEVER be sold or used in any way with which the human being earns money. In this manner, I condemn all those involved in animal breeding ... those people who breed animals, usually pedigree, and then sell them, earning money for themselves, etc...
Likewise, I condemn all those people who are seen at every flea-market, keeping dogs and sometimes cats as well, in small cages and offer them for sale.
WITH WHAT RIGHT DOES MAN EXPECT TO EARN MONEY FROM ANIMALS?????
How do you expect to be taken seriously when as you state we should care for dogs in existence and not breed, sell etc. does this not mean that after all dogs in existence die no more dogs will exist. Or when stating that animals are raped and that anyone might be advocating the right of sperm to become animals. Indeed Mr. Cassar, stop preaching rubbish.
As for your persistent reference to your website, apart from the free advertising you are trying to achieve I suggest that readers do log on when in need for some comic amusement.