26 Oct 04
"Where is this mysterious supposition?" posted by Bbarr
Excuse me, I thought this thread was about people objecting to standard agricultural practises inadvertantly causing suffering to sheep, the torture reference implied to me a deliberate act. I don't think you are accusing farmers of torture.
In Mybaaaaadship
KneverKnight
26 Oct 04
1 edit
Originally posted by steerpikeyou are confusing ALF with PETA (though i'm sure ALF would support the boycott).
To quote you: [b]it would be logical to assume that ALF would be in support of the boycot
How exactly would your ALF colleages and the rest of the AR lunatic fringe show their support for the "boycott"? What has happened to shops ...[text shortened]... n has not not got the public support to organise a real boycott.
[/b]
the latter runs various campaigns against corporations who abuse animals as well as against those who use products from abused animals.
these campaigns have been for the most part very successful because the reveal to the public the atrocities that go on behind closed doors.
the public becomes aware, they decide they won't support the atrocities and changes are made.
in friendship,
prad
26 Oct 04
Originally posted by druidravithis is very true.
Considering that you are also using its natural body product wool for commercial profit you have an obligation to ensure it gets atleast humane treatment.
unfortunately, obligations are easy to ignore when it comes to agri animals because there are usually no protective laws in place. people who are guided by the profit margin or how cheap they can get their wool, for instance, will set a very different standard for what is 'humane'. for instance, even though it should be evident that carving out chunks of flesh without anaesthetic must be painful, it was suggested that it isn't a problem because "Apparently it does no permanent physical damage".
that sort of argument as well as the "you are destroying the livelihood of millions" and of course the "you guys go around breaking windows and god knows what else" are typical of those who
1) haven't looked into the matter
2) want for whatever reason to deny what is happening
3) let the profit margin guide their actions
fortunately, because of item 3), boycotts do have an effect.
in friendship,
prad
26 Oct 04
1 edit
Originally posted by pradtfIgnoring your ridiculous ad hominem arguments, do you think children shouldn't get polio shots because they cause pain?
this is very true.
unfortunately, obligations are easy to ignore when it comes to agri animals because there are usually no protective laws in place. people who are guided by the profit margin or how cheap they can get their wool, for insta ...[text shortened]... se of item 3), boycotts do have an effect.
in friendship,
prad
And where Drudavi did you come up with a figure of .50 for the administering of a pain killer to an animal? You obviously haven't been to the vet since the Great Depression! I would conservatively estimate the cost at ten times that, probably more. All to alleviate temporary discomfort to a sheep? Insane!
In Usethatpumpkinforachangesheep,
2BitLawyer
26 Oct 04
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderYou think you have a moral obligation not to destroy this glove? To whom do you owe this obligation? Do you owe it to Babe Ruth, or to yourself, or to the glove, or...? If you owe this obligation to nobody, then I submit that you are mistaking a self-imposed prudential constraint for an actual moral constraint. Given the you value the glove for sentimental reasons, and hence have personal interests in maintaining the glove, you have prudential reasons not to destroy the glove. If you ceased to see sentimental value in the glove, you would no longer have a reason not to destroy it, whereas if you ceased to value your dog, you would still have a moral reason not to torture it.
Since I don't agree with your definition of property as "something I can do anything I want with without any constraints", there's little more to say. If I have a baseball glove that Babe Ruth once used, I might feel morally c ...[text shortened]... my last paragraph in the last post, which you did not comment on
I find it bizzare that you would equate what are obviously reasons of personal interest with reasons of morality. If you think that your dog has merely sentimental value, then this would be consistent with viewing your dog as property. If you think that your dog is such that you owe obligations to it directly, that is, if you think your dog has moral value, then the constraints this imposes on your behavior are not prudential constraints, but moral constraints. Put simply, those things to which we take ourselves to have moral obligations cannot also be considered property by us. This follows from the nature of property, as I understand it. Of course, you may reject this analysis of property, but that will lead to absurd implications (e.g., that it is possible to own children and the profoundly developmentally disabled).
Further, you claim twice in your post that moral constraints are constraints you impose on yourself. But this is not the notion of a moral constraint. Moral constraints apply to people regardless of what they believe. If I torture a person, I have done wrong to that person, and I will have acted immorally. Even if I declare "I hereby remove all moral constraints on my behavior", that is not sufficient for making my torturing of a person permissible. So, when you recognize a moral constraint on your behavior, you recognize an obligation that applies to you regardless of your desires to be thus obligated. In short, the recognition of a moral obligation is the recognition that it binds you. It is not merely the recognition of something you can selectively impose on yourself.
Further, infants have no concept of ownership or property, and neither do the profoundly developmentally disabled. So, again, on your view it seems possible to conceive of them as property. Since you think that we can own things to which we owe moral obligations, you are committed to the possibility of owning humans. You may respond that children, at least, will develop such a concept, but all that shows is that we can't own children forever, and not that we can't ever own children. Note, again, that your response doesn't apply to the profoundly developmentally disabled, or those who for whatever reason cannot grasp the concept of ownership.
26 Oct 04
1 edit
Does the above mean I have to call no1 "Massa"?
Taken from http://www.nfss.org/Legis/Peta-AA/pet-5.html
PETA says it does not fund terrorists, but when arsonists who blew up a research lab in Michigan were caught, PETA paid $45,000 for the legal defense of arsonist Rodney Coronado.
"We gave him money for his defense because it is America and you are entitled to a legal defense and he's a fine young man and a school teacher," Newkirk said.
Coronado doesn't seem to have any remorse for his action. He's out of jail, and a few months ago the Center for Consumer Freedom taped him urging others to burn buildings down.
"I wish I didn't have to stand up here and talk about and justify and encourage direct action - encourage breaking the law, encourage burning down buildings that are built for life's destruction, but I do," he said.
end quote Seems a high price for animal rights.
26 Oct 04
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderwell you do a good job ignoring ad hominem arguments, i'll grant.
Ignoring your ridiculous ad hominem arguments, do you think children shouldn't get polio shots because they cause pain?
And where Drudavi did you come up with a figure of .50 for the administering of a pain ...[text shortened]... n Usethatpumpkinforachangesheep,
2BitLawyer🙄🙄🙄🙄
i don't think that the sheep will be given painkillers at standard vet costs or during the great depression. since there are so many sheep, i'm sure they can work out a deal.
below are other accounts of mulesing - it still doesn't sound nice.
in friendship,
prad
Mulesing
The part skinning alive of millions of lambs, especially in Australia and New Zealand. The skin and wool is cut away from their backsides with shears. At the same time their tails may be amputated (see below) and the skin is pealed from around their tail stump. Stock hands carry this out with no demand for competence nor any anaesthetic for the sheep. About 65 million sheep in Australia are mulesed. Lambs clearly suffer; for days they stand with lowered head, body hunched, moving only short distances with an unnatural tread.
Mulesing is meant to counter flystrike, an infestation from blowflies. Blowflies look like house files and feed on dung and carrion. They lay their eggs on the moist parts of the sheep, such as around the anus and vagina and may live in wounds. Merino sheep, the major kind of sheep in Australia, are particularly prone to flystrike because of the folds of skin which characterise the breed and make a good home for the larvas. The hatching larvas eat into the flesh and madden the sheep, who stop eating and will die if left untreated. Hence sheep are mulesed, which leaves a big smooth scar that is unattractive to blowfly.
Among the problems of mulesing are that wounds take three to five weeks to heal. Lambs stricken with pain might lose support from their dams and starve. Wounds often succumb to flystrike anyway before they heal. Nor does mulesing stop flystrike on other parts of the body (which have to be treated with chemicals). Thus mulesing might harm more sheep than it saves. One of the suggested long-term solutions against flystrike is breeding sheep who are resistant to blowflies. Vaccination of sheep against blowfly larvas is still being researched.
Mulesing is illegal in Britain. Flystrike occurs there but it is not as great a problem as in Australia and New Zealand.
http://www.wolftrust.org.uk/aec-w-entries-wool.html
To counter flystrike a procedure called mulesing is carried out most of the lambs and sheep. This is where farmers carve huge strips of flesh (not wool) from around the anal and vaginal area of sheep without anaesthetic or any requirement of skill. This to leave a smooth scar that won't harbour fly eggs. However the dreadful wounds often get flystrike before they heal; and despite the suspicion that mulesing may kill more sheep than it saves, the mutilation continues. After mulesing, lambs can be seen writhing and scuttling sideways like crabs, trying to escape the pain. Mulesing can also go wrong and lead to infection in the tail joints as well as twisted tails. Mulesing is a bloody business and the wound will take 3-5 weeks to heal. Mulesed lambs suffer a setback in body weight gains for 10 days after the operation. Another dreadful procedure carried out in Australia (now illegal in Britain) is tooth grinding. Teeth are ground down exposing the pulpy nerve which causes excrutiating pain and suffering to millions of animals.
http://www.sword2skyvegan.net/wool.html
see also: http://www.tinypenis.com/article/1998/051198_mulesing.html
for a graphic of a picture of a freshly mulesed lamb
on that page are comments from 2 vets:
Two vets speak out against mulesing
DR JOHN AUTY is a veterinarian with vast experience in the meat and sheep trade, who has also worked as an Agronomist, as a stud overseer in private practice, as Chief Commissioner for Soil Conservation and in the Department of Primary Industry.
He says of Mulesing: "It is similar to flaying and the pain will be experienced for weeks and months afterwards. Mulesing does not free the sheep from blowfly strike, but proper husbandry practices, including close inspection of sheep, will reduce and virtually eliminate flystrike."
DR ROGER MEISCHKE is a vet surgeon who has practiced in the wool growing areas of NSW and for the Federal Department of Primary Industry. He now runs a small sheep stud. Dr Meischke is critical of mulesing. He says farmers who mules and breed from all sheep enable the susceptibility to flystrike to continue.
He says: "Mulesing is an admission by sheep breeders, that their animals do not possess the breeding required for survival in their area."
26 Oct 04
Originally posted by bbarrYou seem to be consistently misunderstanding my arguments. The destruction of a glove would violate my moral constraints in the same way the destroying of the Venus De Milo would; it may be a piece of property but it holds great historical significance to me and to succeeding generations. So I would submit I would owe this duty to others not yet born. Note this argument is only in response to your "owning something means you can do with it whatever you please" definition of property.
You think you have a moral obligation not to destroy this glove? To whom do you owe this obligation? Do you owe it to Babe Ruth, or to yourself, or to the glove, or...? If you owe this obligation to nobody, then I submit that you are mistaking a self-imposed prudential constraint for an actual moral constraint. Given the you value the glove for [i]sentimen ...[text shortened]... elopmentally disabled, or those who for whatever reason cannot grasp the concept of ownership.
Other than simply stating over and over again that something which we feel a moral obligation to can't be property, I don't see that you've really addressed my points. Obviously I do reject your "analysis of property" as does the entire world, at least legally, because every country allows the ownership of animals! No place I know of allows the ownership of children or developmentally disabled for the reasons I stated. Put simply, we do not treat human beings in the same manner as dogs (at least legally). Maybe you feel that is irrational; but as your argument has at its cornerstone a definition and analysis of property rejected by the vast majority and as the meaning of a word is usually determined by common usuage not the predilections of individuals, I say that problem lies in your central premise, not mine.
In Noahwebster'ssheep,
2BitLawyer
26 Oct 04
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderSo, you think that the moral obligation you have not to destroy the glove is one you owe to other humans. This is perfectly consistent with the analysis of property I provided earlier (which I'll repost below, in bold), as the constraints here are ones owed to other humans (just like constraints on our use of guns, cars, natural resources, etc.). So, since your examples are consistent with my analysis of property, they do not constitute arguments against it. So again, here is the point:
You seem to be consistently misunderstanding my arguments. The destruction of a glove would violate my moral constraints in the same way the destroying of the Venus De Milo would; it may be a piece of property but it holds great ...[text shortened]... In Noahwebster'ssheep,
2BitLawyer
it is the nature of property that if you own something, there are no constraints, other than those imposed by the rights of others, on how you may dispose of that property. Although our freedom to use our cars and guns is regulated while around others in virtue of the potential for violating the rights of these others to be free from harm, when in isolation from our fellows, we may do whatever we wish with the things we own. So, I submit that proper objects of ownership are those things of which an owner may use in any way he desires, subject only to constraints in place by virtue of the rights of others.
Now you are claiming that the obligations you have concerning the glove and the Venus de Milo are owed to other humans (e.g., the humans that will come into existence in the future). This is just a particular instance of you being constrained by the rights of other humans, and does not constitute an argument against the analysis of property offered above.
Further, you are just plain wrong that people reject the analysis of property I'm offering. In fact, the vast majority of people would agree with my analysis of property and not yours. First, people generally think that if they own something they can do with it what they please (within constraints placed by the rights of others). This analysis of property traces back to Locke and Mill, and is clearly the one at play in our culture, where constraints on property use are justified by reference to the competing interests of others. Second, your claim that it is possible to own something to which you owe a moral obligation entails that it is possible to own humans (as I've claimed before, and to which you've failed to adequately respond). I think almost everybody would reject this entailment and the view of property that gave rise to it (i.e., your view).
In short, I think the commonly accepted notion of property (i.e., my view), is inconsistent with the following claims: 1) We owe moral obligations to animals, and 2) Animals can be property. I think you either have to give up the claim that we owe moral obligations to animals or that animals can be property, because if you allow both 1 and 2, then there is no principled reason why humans cannot also be objects of property.
Now, you claim that there is a strict distinction between owning humans and owning animals; that the former is impermissible and the latter is fine. You justify this claim by reference to what people across the world actually believe. This establishes nothing about the rationality of these beliefs. Throughout the vast majority of human history, owning humans and has been believed to be permissible.
26 Oct 04
Originally posted by pradtfI thought ALF was that hairy alien critter on tv?
you are confusing ALF with PETA (though i'm sure ALF would support the boycott).
the latter runs various campaigns against corporations who abuse animals as well as against those who use products from abused animals.
these campaigns have been for the most part very successful because the reveal to the public the atrocities that go on behind closed doors. ...[text shortened]... e, they decide they won't support the atrocities and changes are made.
in friendship,
prad
Maybe it's ALP-HA and PETA or Beta
26 Oct 04
1 edit
Pradft:
Mulesing is meant to counter flystrike, an infestation from blowflies. Blowflies look like house files and feed on dung and carrion. They lay their eggs on the moist parts of the sheep, such as around the anus and vagina and may live in wounds. Merino sheep, the major kind of sheep in Australia, are particularly prone to flystrike because of the folds of skin which characterise the breed and make a good home for the larvas. The hatching larvas eat into the flesh and madden the sheep, who stop eating and will die if left untreated. Hence sheep are mulesed, which leaves a big smooth scar that is unattractive to blowfly.
Prad, would that not just make a larger wound for the flies to feast on?
Is this practise on done in Oz?
Did you know that lambs used to be castrated (on large ranches) by having the farmer bite off the testicles?
26 Oct 04
Originally posted by bbarrPlease cite me to the places in Locke and/or Mill where they say they a human being can't own a sheep or a horse or a dog because anything we feel we have "moral obligations" concerning can't be property! Since you won't find any such thing, reliance on them is certainly misplaced. There's little more in your post than a restatement of your previous assertions which I have already addressed. I'm given my argument while owning humans is impermissle while owning animals is not; you don't agree with it but you have not shown it to be contradictory: different things csn be treated differently. And finally, your claim is that your analysis of property is THE accepted analysis and mine is not; however, the world wide acceptance of ownership of animals shows that your analysis is overwhelmingly rejected a fact that you choose to ignore.
So, you think that the moral obligation you have not to destroy the glove is one you owe to other humans. This is perfectly consistent with the analysis of property I provided earlier (which I'll repost below, in bold), as the constraints here are ones owed to other humans (just like constraints on our use of guns, cars, natural resources, etc.). So, ...[text shortened]... ast majority of human history, owning humans and has been believed to be permissible.
In Thisisgettingalittlerepetitivesheep,
2BitLawyer
26 Oct 04
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm not claiming that Locke or Mill thought we couldn't own animals, I'm claiming that Locke and Mill both thought that the only constraints on our use of things we owned were those imposed by the rights of others. I'm also claiming that this notion of property is inconsistent with the conjunction of 1 and 2 above.
Please cite me to the places in Locke and/or Mill where they say they a human being can't own a sheep or a horse or a dog because anything we feel we have "moral obligations" concerning can't be property! Since you won't fin ...[text shortened]... In Thisisgettingalittlerepetitivesheep,
2BitLawyer
You haven't given any arguments to show that owning humans is impermissible, only that people now think that owning humans is impermissible. What you have claimed is that you can't own a creature that has the concept of ownership and that doesn't want to be owned. I responded that infants and the profoundly developmentally disabled don't have the necessary concepts, and that your notion of property is thereby consistent with the claim that it is possible to own infants and the profoundly developmentally disabled. You have claimed that infants will develop the necessary concepts, but that only shows that you can't own infants forever, not that you can't ever own them.
EDIT: After re-reading your last post, I've realized that you've lost the train of argument here. So, let's recap:
I'm claiming that the following is an implication of how we understand the notion of property:
If you own something, there are no constraints, other than those imposed by the rights of other humans, on how you may dispose of that property.
It is this analysis I attribute to Locke and Mill.
Now, here's the argument:
If you think that you have a moral obligation to an animal, then you are thereby committed to the claim that there is a constraint on how you may treat that animal. This follows from the nature of moral obligation.
Further, you are thereby committed to the claim that this constraint on your behavior is not one imposed by the rights of other humans. This follows from what it means to owe an obligation to an animal.
So, if you owe an obligation to an animal, then there is a constraint on how you may treat that animal, and this constraint is not imposed by the rights of other humans.
Hence, if you owe an obligation to an animal, then that animal fails to satisfy the analysis of property given above.
So, this is why I claimed that the account of analysis given above is inconsistent with the conjunction of 1 and 2.
Please note that this is a consistency argument, as I've mentioned more than once in this thread. I'm not claiming that people are committed to denying that animals can be owned. If you deny that you have moral obligations to animals, then you can consistently claim that you may own animals (although there are good reasons for thinking we do have such obligations). If you deny the analysis of property above, then you may claim that we can both own animals and owe obligations to them. If you do this, however, your analysis of property will fail to exclude humans as potential objects of ownership. If you merely stipulate that humans cannot be objects of ownership, while animals can, then you'll need some argument to back this up. It is not a sufficient argument to claim that people believe this, because people believe all sorts of nonsense, as is evidenced by the fact that most people throughout history have thought that humans can be owned.
27 Oct 04
1 edit
Originally posted by elvendreamgirl😀
I thought ALF was that hairy alien critter on tv?
Maybe it's ALP-HA and PETA or Beta
ALF is the Animal Liberation Front.
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/
they take direct action to free animals.
The ALF guidelines are:
1. TO liberate animals from places of abuse, i.e. laboratories, factory farms, fur farms, etc, and place them in good homes where they may live out their natural lives, free from suffering.
2. TO inflict economic damage to those who profit from the misery and exploitation of animals.
3. TO reveal the horror and atrocities committed against animals behind locked doors, by performing non-violent direct actions and liberations.
4. TO take all necessary precautions against harming any animal, human and non-human.
some people think they do some violent things and to some extent they are correct.
however, their violence is rather miniscule compared to what some people do to some animals and what some people do to some humans.
they are not connected with PETA though some people try very hard to make that connection in an effort to paint the picture that AR people are always violent.
in friendship,
prad
27 Oct 04
Originally posted by elvendreamgirli don't know if it is done in Oz - much would depend on the climate i guess. i can try to find out for you though.
Prad, would that not just make a larger wound for the flies to feast on?
Is this practise on done in Oz?
as far as creating a larger wound, you are correct. looking back to my earlier post you will see:
Among the problems of mulesing are that wounds take three to five weeks to heal. Lambs stricken with pain might lose support from their dams and starve. Wounds often succumb to flystrike anyway before they heal. Nor does mulesing stop flystrike on other parts of the body (which have to be treated with chemicals).
and
the dreadful wounds often get flystrike before they heal
here's what the Codes of Practice - Welfare of Animals - Sheep from austrialia's environment act says:
Mulesing should be performed as soon as possible after 2 weeks of age and where possible in conjunction with other lamb marking operations. After mulesing, lambs should be observed from a distance, until the wounds have healed, for signs of fly strike of the wound. Animals with infested wounds should be quietly caught and treated without delay.
http://www.environment.act.gov.au/petsandlocalwildlife/codeprac/hbndproc.html
so the chance of flystrike is definitely a concern even after mulesing.
in friendship,
prad