PETA Attempts To Make Fish More Adorable
- Thread starter ryguyfi
- Start date
wetnet
Active member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 1,412
It's hard to view others through my eyes. I might be teasing about eating Oscar' who is a 6 inch Oscar fish that would be most probably be better off living in his native waters rather than be feed creek nymphs and shrimp and live the life he has in his tank. I guess I shouldn't have bought him and should release him to be free to be eaten.
I would hope that I have a right to make some of my own decisions. I chose to hunt. I chose to shoot or not to shoot game. I chose not to waste. To eat what I take. I choose to entirely love fishing and to let the fish go if I so desire. I don't choose to dictate someones life that dictates me to eat soy. Let them eat soy, I'm fine by that. I am not fine with having anyone else dictate my diet or my life. I am not fine with anyone telling me that because I fish and decide to release them instead of eat them that I am a monster. I think soy bean plants when dying don't feel great after their beans have been plucked. Life isn't forever, it isn't always a walk in the park for anything, not even humans.
I would hope that I have a right to make some of my own decisions. I chose to hunt. I chose to shoot or not to shoot game. I chose not to waste. To eat what I take. I choose to entirely love fishing and to let the fish go if I so desire. I don't choose to dictate someones life that dictates me to eat soy. Let them eat soy, I'm fine by that. I am not fine with having anyone else dictate my diet or my life. I am not fine with anyone telling me that because I fish and decide to release them instead of eat them that I am a monster. I think soy bean plants when dying don't feel great after their beans have been plucked. Life isn't forever, it isn't always a walk in the park for anything, not even humans.
ian_brown
Member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2007
- Messages
- 308
pcray wrote:
"The point is, animal cruelty laws are not about animal "rights" at all, they are not meant to protect the animals. They are about protecting people."
This might be why you accept them, but I'll be skeptical that animal rights laws were "not meant to protect animals" until I see some legislative history.
Jack, I generally agree with you. It just seems to me that animals occupy a strange middle ground in our culture.
You mentioned harvest laws, and I think hunting regulations make my point. Do deer enjoy the same legal rights as people? Clearly they don't. Are restrictions on the number of deer harvested in some way a "right" that the deer possess? Nope. These restrictions exist to sustain a healthy deer population. However, I believe that in this state it is only legal to hunt deer with centerfire ammunition, not rimfire. Other areas have minimum caliber restrictions. The obvious moral judgment behind these laws is that we find hunting acceptable as a society, but think it should be done in a way that lessens the animal's pain.
Maybe it comes down to the motivation behind the law. Pcray's assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, it seems self-evident that most animal cruelty laws are primarily designed to benefit animals rather than people. The recent restrictions on the treatment of farm animals in some western states don't seem to benefit people at all, but they should make life a little more pleasant for some chickens. In contrast, emissions laws are designed to benefit people.
Again, legally and semantically, animals do not have "rights." But at least some enjoy something could be described as "rights-light." They don't have legal rights in the sense that the wingnuts would like, but we seem to give them an in-between status culturally. No, they are not entitled to human rights, but we don't think of them in the same way we think of other types of property either.
I could go on (where do rights come from? do the Chinese have a "right" to free-speech, even though their government doesn't recognize one? why do we scold little boys for pulling the wings off flies, but not the leaves off clovers? why did I just spend a half -hour writing on a subject I really don't care that much about?), but I'd prefer to go to bed and read the Geirach book I just bought.
"The point is, animal cruelty laws are not about animal "rights" at all, they are not meant to protect the animals. They are about protecting people."
This might be why you accept them, but I'll be skeptical that animal rights laws were "not meant to protect animals" until I see some legislative history.
Jack, I generally agree with you. It just seems to me that animals occupy a strange middle ground in our culture.
You mentioned harvest laws, and I think hunting regulations make my point. Do deer enjoy the same legal rights as people? Clearly they don't. Are restrictions on the number of deer harvested in some way a "right" that the deer possess? Nope. These restrictions exist to sustain a healthy deer population. However, I believe that in this state it is only legal to hunt deer with centerfire ammunition, not rimfire. Other areas have minimum caliber restrictions. The obvious moral judgment behind these laws is that we find hunting acceptable as a society, but think it should be done in a way that lessens the animal's pain.
Maybe it comes down to the motivation behind the law. Pcray's assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, it seems self-evident that most animal cruelty laws are primarily designed to benefit animals rather than people. The recent restrictions on the treatment of farm animals in some western states don't seem to benefit people at all, but they should make life a little more pleasant for some chickens. In contrast, emissions laws are designed to benefit people.
Again, legally and semantically, animals do not have "rights." But at least some enjoy something could be described as "rights-light." They don't have legal rights in the sense that the wingnuts would like, but we seem to give them an in-between status culturally. No, they are not entitled to human rights, but we don't think of them in the same way we think of other types of property either.
I could go on (where do rights come from? do the Chinese have a "right" to free-speech, even though their government doesn't recognize one? why do we scold little boys for pulling the wings off flies, but not the leaves off clovers? why did I just spend a half -hour writing on a subject I really don't care that much about?), but I'd prefer to go to bed and read the Geirach book I just bought.
pcray1231
Well-known member
ian,
Looking up some of the laws, I think we're probably both right to some degree. Original laws on treatment of farm animals were put in place for public safety. Chiefly the concern was spread of disease, they didn't want to endanger our food supply. But you could, for instance, cage egg chickens in tiny spaces or keep veal cows in tiny boxes, so long as they weren't too crowded by other animals. Original laws on treatment of pets was aimed at not letting people have dangerous animals, create an unsanitary condition, lower the land value of neighbors, perpetuate dangerous breeds, etc. Nobody wants to live next to the lady with 40 cats whose house can be smelled 3 blocks away, and Mike Vick breeding abnormally mean pit bulls puts a lot of dangerous animals into circulation.
Lately, the push has been more on terms of animal welfare. This philosophy says the human use of animals for sport, companionship, food, research, etc., is all ok. If an animal suffers for the good of humans, thats fine, but we shouldn't cause it any suffering beyond what is needed. Making sure of this is a human responsibility as opposed to a right of the animal. This is usually the stance of the vet associations and such. And yeah, there's lots of more recent laws on the books along these lines, usually they're add-on clauses to the broad-based original laws and they're written to outlaw specific practices.
PETA, however, is a proponent of animal rights, which is fundamentally different than animal welfare. This says that animals have as many rights as people, and where conflict between animals and people comes into play, the animals win. To my knowledge, nothing like this has made it into law books.
Looking up some of the laws, I think we're probably both right to some degree. Original laws on treatment of farm animals were put in place for public safety. Chiefly the concern was spread of disease, they didn't want to endanger our food supply. But you could, for instance, cage egg chickens in tiny spaces or keep veal cows in tiny boxes, so long as they weren't too crowded by other animals. Original laws on treatment of pets was aimed at not letting people have dangerous animals, create an unsanitary condition, lower the land value of neighbors, perpetuate dangerous breeds, etc. Nobody wants to live next to the lady with 40 cats whose house can be smelled 3 blocks away, and Mike Vick breeding abnormally mean pit bulls puts a lot of dangerous animals into circulation.
Lately, the push has been more on terms of animal welfare. This philosophy says the human use of animals for sport, companionship, food, research, etc., is all ok. If an animal suffers for the good of humans, thats fine, but we shouldn't cause it any suffering beyond what is needed. Making sure of this is a human responsibility as opposed to a right of the animal. This is usually the stance of the vet associations and such. And yeah, there's lots of more recent laws on the books along these lines, usually they're add-on clauses to the broad-based original laws and they're written to outlaw specific practices.
PETA, however, is a proponent of animal rights, which is fundamentally different than animal welfare. This says that animals have as many rights as people, and where conflict between animals and people comes into play, the animals win. To my knowledge, nothing like this has made it into law books.
FarmerDave
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2006
- Messages
- 14,257
reds, I was just ribbing you a little when I mentioned the third party stuff. Notice the smile.
I wasn't offended, but I clearly was not “plain wrong,” either. I wasn't even partially wrong this time. The fact is you chose to use the term lightly, and I don’t. You can call them "rights" if you want. Heck, you can call them Freds if you want. That is your right. There is no law against it. But I value our rights too much to use the term in this way.
And about your “uneducated” comment?
Not only was that meant as a personal insult, It was also another misuse of terms. I believe the correct term would be "unprogrammed." ;-)
Instead of responding to dummies like me, I'd like to see you respond to Jack's messages. He splains it much more better.
Let me ask you something. If I harvest a trout out of season, am I violating the rights of that fish, or just breaking a law?
I wasn't offended, but I clearly was not “plain wrong,” either. I wasn't even partially wrong this time. The fact is you chose to use the term lightly, and I don’t. You can call them "rights" if you want. Heck, you can call them Freds if you want. That is your right. There is no law against it. But I value our rights too much to use the term in this way.
And about your “uneducated” comment?
Not only was that meant as a personal insult, It was also another misuse of terms. I believe the correct term would be "unprogrammed." ;-)
Instead of responding to dummies like me, I'd like to see you respond to Jack's messages. He splains it much more better.
Let me ask you something. If I harvest a trout out of season, am I violating the rights of that fish, or just breaking a law?
FarmerDave
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2006
- Messages
- 14,257
I disagree. It does not imply that animals have rights. It only says that people need to act responsibly. The fact that it is just a summary offense should tell you something. Try doing any of those things to a human and see what the penalty is.
Describing someone else's opinion as "absurd" is ONE way of signifying that you disagree with that opinion.
But regarding whether or not animals have rights.
If by "rights" we mean rights as defined by law, both animals and humans have rights defined by law. The laws define different rights for humans and animals, but the overall concept is the same. Humans have certain rights defined by the law. And animals have certain rights defined by the law. So, humans have legal rights, and animals have legal rights.
Rights could also refer to moral or ethical rights. Different people will have different ideas what rights humans and animals have according to their own particular moral code.
More important than the question of what rights animals have is the question of what moral obligations do we humans have, in relation to other humans and to animals.
BTW, I didn't check the PETA site. Their views are absurd. 🙂
jayL
Active member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2007
- Messages
- 9,947
I think this is the most important point in the entire discussion. Religious examples aside, "rights" are what we make of them. Many seem to be granted by a being's mere existence, but in truth, nothing ensures them.
Not everyone agrees with this, and that's probably going to allow this debate to continue ad infinitum.
pcray1231
Well-known member
Going further, 1958 marked the main federal "animal cruelty" law, though it wasn't called that then, and many states followed with their own laws. Their purpose, as I mentioned, was originally to protect humans. Much of the animal welfare history is based on lawsuits trying to interpret that law from the animals perspective. Thus, a change in interpretation vastly preceded a change in laws.
The first "animal welfare" case which looked at things from an animal's perspective, as opposed to a human perspective, was in 1974. Jones vs. Butz in NY state. A previous law had outlined the proper way to slaughter an animal, which was put in place for health purposes. Jones challenged the law as inhumane, and the animal welfare side lost the case as the judge ruled that human health, not animal suffering, was the goal of the law, and the court's role is not to legislate meanings to laws that were not intended.
2nd Case was Jones vs. Beame, yes the same Jones, in 1975. He held that 3 zoos in NY city did not provide sanitary conditions for their animals and wanted them shut down. He lost again, but the case got a lot of press, and zoos across the country quickly improved their practices for fear of a lawsuit.
The first legal semi-success was in 1979 in California, the Animal Defense Council got a temporary injunction against the fish and wildlife services and U.S. Navy from exterminating a feral goat population on San Clemente Island, as their planned practices (shooting them) were inhumane. However, the injunction was temporary so that the Navy had to investigate alternative plans, they did and concluded that death was the best option, and the court agreed, so the goats were killed anyway.
First "animal welfare" as opposed to human focused legislation, as opposed to interpretation, was also in California in 1981. A woman was found dead, and her will stated that her dog was to be put to sleep and buried alongside her. There was a big public outcry, and the California legislature quickly created a law which retroactively banned putting healthy animals to sleep as directed by wills.
Also in 1981 in California, animal activists successfully stopped the Navy from killing feral burrows in China Lake. The Navy felt they were a danger to the airfields and could cause a crash. A temporary court injunction was successful, and then the court made the Navy investigate alternative plans. The alternative plans were made, but the Navy still concluded killing them was the best method, similar to the goat case. But this time even that was shot down by the court, and they forced live capture, which was successful and the Navy then continued with that plan for years. This case and the press about it also prompted the start of PETA.
Also in 1981, which still stands as the only case regarding researchers, a researcher in Maryland had his monkeys stolen by PETA. When the perpetrators were found, they were prosecuted successfully. But they also pressed charges against the researcher for failing to give the animals proper vetinary care. He was convicted of a misdeameanor by a judge, appealed and was convicted by a jury, but then the appeals court (no jury) overturned it AS THE PURPOSE OF THE LAW WAS TO PROTECT HUMANS FROM DISEASE, and government sponsored medical researchers are exempt from such a law when studying disease on animals.
I won't go on any longer. As the cases go on, the animal welfare side slowly gained ground, though its still debated in courts. The new legislation started in the 90's, picked up steam in the late 90's, and continues today. Typically, they are clauses added to the original 1958 laws outlawing specific practices. So what we have now is various interpretations by courts of the 1958 law, some courts uphold it as an animal welfare law while others do not, but the newer laws are pretty clear and upheld by the courts.
The first "animal welfare" case which looked at things from an animal's perspective, as opposed to a human perspective, was in 1974. Jones vs. Butz in NY state. A previous law had outlined the proper way to slaughter an animal, which was put in place for health purposes. Jones challenged the law as inhumane, and the animal welfare side lost the case as the judge ruled that human health, not animal suffering, was the goal of the law, and the court's role is not to legislate meanings to laws that were not intended.
2nd Case was Jones vs. Beame, yes the same Jones, in 1975. He held that 3 zoos in NY city did not provide sanitary conditions for their animals and wanted them shut down. He lost again, but the case got a lot of press, and zoos across the country quickly improved their practices for fear of a lawsuit.
The first legal semi-success was in 1979 in California, the Animal Defense Council got a temporary injunction against the fish and wildlife services and U.S. Navy from exterminating a feral goat population on San Clemente Island, as their planned practices (shooting them) were inhumane. However, the injunction was temporary so that the Navy had to investigate alternative plans, they did and concluded that death was the best option, and the court agreed, so the goats were killed anyway.
First "animal welfare" as opposed to human focused legislation, as opposed to interpretation, was also in California in 1981. A woman was found dead, and her will stated that her dog was to be put to sleep and buried alongside her. There was a big public outcry, and the California legislature quickly created a law which retroactively banned putting healthy animals to sleep as directed by wills.
Also in 1981 in California, animal activists successfully stopped the Navy from killing feral burrows in China Lake. The Navy felt they were a danger to the airfields and could cause a crash. A temporary court injunction was successful, and then the court made the Navy investigate alternative plans. The alternative plans were made, but the Navy still concluded killing them was the best method, similar to the goat case. But this time even that was shot down by the court, and they forced live capture, which was successful and the Navy then continued with that plan for years. This case and the press about it also prompted the start of PETA.
Also in 1981, which still stands as the only case regarding researchers, a researcher in Maryland had his monkeys stolen by PETA. When the perpetrators were found, they were prosecuted successfully. But they also pressed charges against the researcher for failing to give the animals proper vetinary care. He was convicted of a misdeameanor by a judge, appealed and was convicted by a jury, but then the appeals court (no jury) overturned it AS THE PURPOSE OF THE LAW WAS TO PROTECT HUMANS FROM DISEASE, and government sponsored medical researchers are exempt from such a law when studying disease on animals.
I won't go on any longer. As the cases go on, the animal welfare side slowly gained ground, though its still debated in courts. The new legislation started in the 90's, picked up steam in the late 90's, and continues today. Typically, they are clauses added to the original 1958 laws outlawing specific practices. So what we have now is various interpretations by courts of the 1958 law, some courts uphold it as an animal welfare law while others do not, but the newer laws are pretty clear and upheld by the courts.
