Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
New at Reason
Brendan O'Neill explains why the nicest thing you can do for a mink is skin it and wear it.
fyodor|10.10.05 @ 5:25PM|#
Not all, but most "New At Reason" posts are made by Julian. I wonder if he objected to this article?
|10.10.05 @ 5:31PM|#
Eh, I don't know that I agree with the making a coat out of a
critter is to ennoble it concept. I have mixed feelings about
animal activism. The charge of gross anthropomorphism seems right
on the money, but still. I don't really have a problem with hunting
except to extinction, and I certainly don't think there should be
legal protection. It just seems ... wasteful.
Meh. I have a chinchilla as a pet. Maybe I just can't be reasonable
about this.
|10.10.05 @ 5:34PM|#
Wouldn't fake fur satisfy both parties? And isn't it a better
statement of human civilization that we'd no longer have to resort
to brutal, caveman practices just to look good?
If an animal had the capacity to understand its options, it would
most likely decide to spend its natural existence sleeping, eating,
shitting, etc., as it did before Pierre and the other trappers came
along.
Real fur is no longer a necessity in civilized society. You want to
wear it, fine. I still think you're a scumbag.
|10.10.05 @ 5:49PM|#
The author's statements about higher mammals' capacity to sense
pain are both incorrect, and 100 years out of date. He writes like
a vivisectionist from the 1800s.
"We distinguish between the frankly irritating cry of a distressed
beast and the holler of a threatened human." It is he who is
projecting human feelings into a scientific debate, by confusing
his own apathy about animals' pain with the objective reality of
that pain.
What's the name of the fallacy he engages in with the chicken
example? He provides an example of reflexive action by a harmed
animal, and concludes from it that all action by harmed animals is
reflexive.
|10.10.05 @ 5:52PM|#
I did not have to read any farther than this: Animals do not
understand the concept of 'today', unless we think foxes use
calendars and keep diaries; or 'die', unless we think that mink
have funeral rites; or 'could', because they have no sense of
probabilistic inference; or even 'I', because they also have no
sense of self." Such concepts, says Derbyshire, are "uniquely
human."
The last sentence is flatly incorrect, ergo I have no need to
listen to anything Mr. Derbyshire has to say. Nonhuman primates
and, it appears, perhaps dolphins, have a sense of self that's as
unique as that of human beings.
Whatever the merits of the larger animal rights argument aside, the
idea that it is nobler to confine an animal to an artificial
environment for its short, miserable life, then subject it to a
painful death after which most of the animal is completely wasted;
then to simply let it live its life in the environment for which it
has evolved and let nature do what it will, is simply stupid.
|10.10.05 @ 5:52PM|#
How do you all feel about Foie Gras, where they painfully jam a tube down a duck's throat to force feed it so it can get a fatty liver. I would not be opposed to banning this practice, as it seems pretty cruel. Besides, if there is still a demand for foie gras after banning the force feeding cruelty, someone will supply a new more ethical way to provide it.
M1EK|10.10.05 @ 5:57PM|#
This whole thing about ennobling animals by turning them into a
fur coat just creeps me out. Guys who talk that way aren't much
different than the guys who torture animals for the fun of it,
despite the author's flippant assurance otherwise.
Didn't some people talk that way about slaves in this country at
one point in time? Nothing ennobles them more than ripping them
away from Africa and bringing them to the West, right?
|10.10.05 @ 5:59PM|#
I'm not an animal rights nut, or a vegetarian, or even an
anti-fur guy. I'm just a guy who likes to read stuff that's
interesting, thought provoking, and has some basis in fact and/or
logic.
But that essay is straight trash.
He'd be right that animals don't feel pain as long as he can find
someone whose definition of "feeling pain" entails it being
something only humans can do.
While an animal may not understand the concept of "today", that
fact, if it is a fact (and a great deal of recurring, seasaonal
behavior such as migration, mating, etc, suggests that many animals
have at least some kind of concept time), is stupefyingly,
jaw-droppingly irrelevant to the question of whether the animal
feels pain or not.
A mentally retarded person might not know what "today" is either,
but if ya whack 'em on the knee they'll yelp. Are they just crying
out for another pack member, or are they undergoing some sort of
existential horror? How would we know? Christ, I feel like I�m
writing up an essay assignment for an Ethics 101 class. How could
this guy write this shit?
Also, there is no equivlance between claiming that we ought not
skin animals alive to make things we don't need, versus the claim
that animals ought to have the exact same rights as man, a claim
which, if anyone actually WERE making it, would include things like
the rights to privacy and voting.
But then to cap off this madhouse of brainless bullshit by somehow
saying that opposing fox hunting represents �an attack on our
civilization�? That's not even worth thinking about or mustering a
reply to. Who the fuck is this guy, George W. Bush?
A sad, sad piece. I look forward to it dropping off the main
page.
|10.10.05 @ 6:02PM|#
I agree with joe. He spoke to one expert and quoted him like there was no controversy. I'm not saying that animals deserve the same rights, but there is a lot of evidence that they do feel much like we do. Even if they don't use calendars, they know pain. Questions about the extent to which animals are capable of feeling pain, various emotions, and even having a rudimentary sense of self are hotly disputed areas of research. I'm not saying fur is murder, but it is certainly morally ambiguous. You would find a lot of similar rhetoric describing "the cause of civilization" in the lead up the american civil war describing slavery. I don't mean to conflate this with the horror of slavery, only to point out that our ancestors once justified slavery with the same sort of us vs. them rhetoric. Then as now we would be well advised to carefully consider the issue. Maybe it doesn't matter that they feel. Maybe they don't feel. But maybe it does and maybe they do.
|10.10.05 @ 6:07PM|#
Herrick:
It's really tasty, although too rich to have every day. I like it
with port.
|10.10.05 @ 6:11PM|#
I'm glad to see the comments below mine. I was starting to think
I was going crazy. How did something this poorly reasoned end up in
Reason?
Also, Willy is right that "Questions about the extent to which
animals are capable of feeling pain, various emotions, and even
having a rudimentary sense of self are hotly disputed areas of
research," in the sense that every credible researcher says that
some animals feel pain, some feel emotions, and some have a sense
of self. They just argue about where exactly to draw the line.
Nobody with any credibility on the issue thinks that any species of
mammal is immune to pain.
|10.10.05 @ 6:12PM|#
Minks stink. I lived in a trailor park in central Pennsylvania
between my junior and senior year in college. About a mile down the
road was a mink farm. When the wind blew across the mink farm to my
rented mobile estate, the stench was !!@(%-some.
Now I'm all about given some luvin' to Jennifer Lopez, when that
opportunity presents itself. But she's gonna have to ditch that
mink first.
|10.10.05 @ 6:12PM|#
Look, I don't really care if people wear fur, but that essay
didn't sound like the most convincing defense of the fur
trade.
Bad essay.
|10.10.05 @ 6:30PM|#
So, what's the difference between wearing fur and eating steak?
Someone help me out here.
Didn't some people talk that way about slaves in this country
at one point in time? Nothing ennobles them more than ripping them
away from Africa and bringing them to the West, right?
Except that there is a difference between minks and humans, despite
what PETA would have us think.
That said, it was a pretty shitty essay.
|10.10.05 @ 6:32PM|#
I'm surprised this shit ended up on Reason, considering how
little actual reasoning is in the piece. This piece
belongs on the Man Show, or one of those "look at near-naked women
and grunt like a caveman" mags like Maxim.
Yes, it surely is more "noble" for an animal to be turned into
clothing, than it is for it to run out its natural existence. Huh?
Jesus.
Then, this gem: "To turn an animal into a fur coat is to
ennoble it. As a fashion item, an animal acquires a significance
far beyond its own natural existence. Indeed, the only true
"purpose" in the life of a mink or rabbit is that bestowed on it by
the hunter, skinner and fur-maker: Through their efforts, an animal
is elevated from an instinct-driven bundle of reflex responses to
an item worthy of being displayed in Paris, London and New
York."
He is obviously unable to grasp the concept of relative purpose and
nobility. Yes, it is "elevated" to a "noble" existence as a piece
of clothing, but that elevation, that nobility, is purely and
unequivocally in the eyes of humankind. The author tries to
presuppose that there is some kind of objective judge of nobility
that transcends time and species. No, sorry, this idea of nobility
means nothing to anyone but us homo sapiens sapiens...so to say
that the animal is better off because it is more "noble" as a
scarf, is fucking rediculous. To US, it is, perhaps, a more "noble"
idea (not to all of us, of course), but the animal itself has no
fucking concept of nobility, so, regardless of all this idiot's
macho posturing about our superiority and the nobility of fur, the
circumstances in the end are the same for the animal.
|10.10.05 @ 6:38PM|#
Anyone who thinks animals have "no sense of self" have never
been owned by a cat. It is the natural order for humans to be owned
by cats. Any cat will tell you so in no uncertain terms. Sure,
"dumb" humans often are too stupid to see these things but that is
why the Supreme Feline made the world such that the skin monkeys
had opposable thumbs but no panache nor joie de vivre and She left
cats in charge.
Animals do not feel pain the same way, for them it is a signal more
akin to a loud noise or bright light. Animals do not have self
awareness beyond their homunculus. Animals are not burdened in the
long run by anti-survivalist emotions and the emotions they do
possess are both heritable and obvious. Oh, wait... am I making a
distinction?
Why prohibit Ivory? Don't say endangered unless you are ready to
explain why we can't harvest surplus human kidneys or lungs. Too
extreme? I understand, this issue often catches the unfamiliar
unaware of what the problems are. What about human hair harvested
from minors for cancer patients to wear? For purely esthetic
reasons. Gosh this gets complex fast.
Interspecies ethics is easy. Don't use more force than is necessary
to achieve the result and any complaints need to be communicated by
the the agrieved species. Minks are fluffy rats. Squirells; rats
with hairy tails. Pigeons are but misnamed sewer falcons. Does
anyone deny that were the noble California Condor originally named
the "giant stupid carrion vulture" it would have survived this
long?
The real problem is anthropromorphism. Leave the poor lower
creatures out of the human morass.
|10.10.05 @ 6:42PM|#
I was going to say what a poorly-written piece this was, but got
beaten to it (about 12 times). I'd cancel my subscription to
spiked if I had one.
I mean, I don't care about fur either, but this piece comes across
as something that might have been written by the PETA bunch to show
the reasoning of pro-fur people.
|10.10.05 @ 6:50PM|#
Les:
So, what's the difference between wearing fur and eating steak?
Someone help me out here.
There's not really any difference---but nobody's sitting around
trying to justify their porterhouse by claiming that it "ennobles"
the cow and gives it a "purpose".
I'm no animal rights idiot, but at the same time, I don't go around
trying to justify various uses of animals by claiming that it gives
them some grand purpose. The essay was just idiotic, for that
reason. He had me for awhile, when he was talking about how invalid
it is to say that animals have the same rights as humans...but he
lost me when he started trying to assert that we were doing these
animals a favor by using their skin for clothes.
|10.10.05 @ 6:56PM|#
I think foie gras is well worth the price to the gees and ducks. The gavage (force feeding) only lasts a couple of weeks and the end result is lovely stuff.
|10.10.05 @ 6:58PM|#
I have to agree that in this day and age, we really don't need
to be killing animals for any reason, especially our vanity. It's
the whole reason why I was a vegetarian for years. Another thing
for me is folks who hold animals in such low regard. I think
someone who believes that must have been born and raised in a city
and never had any pets of their own. I was fortunate enough to grow
up around a variety of 4-legged friends, and I can tell you that
while they may not have the refined sense of self that you or I
have, they most certainly seem to know a kind of fear and horror
when they are put in painful and life-threatening
circumstances.
Have a performed specific experiments? No, because I'm not a sick
fuck and I enjoy the company of our non sentient friends too much.
So my evidence is anecdotal. But I do think that if you equate
everything and animal does with instincts, then you have
to believe the same about humans. And I can't believe that about
humans, so I figure, if only a spark, animals must have something
beyond simple instinct, as well. And probably on some sort of
sliding scale, as the debate over how much sentience animals such
as dolphins and primates shows...
|10.10.05 @ 6:59PM|#
My folks grew up on farms and moved to the city. I also worked
in a zoo through high school.
I've noticed that the closer people are to living with lots of
animals the less they care about turning animals into a
coats.
That said, I don't see it as ennobling for an animal to become a
muff or hat.
|10.10.05 @ 6:59PM|#
Joe,
"every credible researcher says that some animals feel pain,
some feel emotions, and some have a sense of self. They just argue
about where exactly to draw the line. Nobody with any credibility
on the issue thinks that any species of mammal is immune to
pain."
The most foolish part about the author's assertion is that he
basically wiped his ass with "On the Origin of Species". He
attempts to draw this big thick line between "humans" and
"animals". Those are the two categories, and a caterpillar feels as
much pain as a chimpanzee. Except that the categroization into
species and families and genuses is all human-created...in other
words, with "descent with modification", or evolution, there is no
distinct line. I wonder what the author would say about homo
erectus. Did he feel pain? Or, of he met a homo erectus, would the
author skin him and use his bones for jewelry, then say that he
felt no pain and that he was ennobled by his actions?
Only a complete retard - or an creationist proponent (but I repeat
myself) - would group life into two distinct categories, humans and
animals, and make gross assumptions about both groups.
|10.10.05 @ 7:04PM|#
Lowdog,
I have to agree that in this day and age, we really don't need
to be killing animals for any reason, especially our vanity. It's
the whole reason why I was a vegetarian for years.
So how do you reconcile all the poor vegetables you've killed over
the years?
If you wanna be a vegetarian, fine, but don't try to draw some big
moral line between killing animals for food and killing vegetables
for food. They're all living organisms, and just because you choose
a certain set of characteristics to revere in liu of others,
doesn't mean that a carrot is any less of a living organism.
I wonder, where do you draw the line? Do bugs feel pain? How do you
know? Would you kill a bug?
|10.10.05 @ 7:05PM|#
It is hard to make the case that becoming high-fashion fur is more enobling than rotting on the forest floor. What I imagine is most enobling is providing some enduring use to living things on the planet- whether it's an animal that is killed for food and other parts used for other necessities of life, or providing food for another animal, or dying of old age and decomposing, it's matter recycled for other living things. Those are all noble things, and actually seem more so than decorating a human who has a little too much money.
|10.10.05 @ 7:06PM|#
You know it's a federal holiday, because Reason is publishing
crap!
Through human endeavor and labor an animal is given a use and
meaning nature could never have designed for it. What is a fox but
a wild dog scrabbling for food on the forest floor, destined to die
and rot in a dirthole? The fox worn by Jagger was spared this fate
and made into something memorably beautiful.
What would those words have done if Mr. O'Neill hadn't come along
to make them into something memorably inane? What cares a fox if it
rots dead in the woods? And why should it? The fear of mortality is
a human fraility, and to feign concern that a fox might die
pointlessly is the same kind of moronic anthropomorphizing of which
Mr. O'Neill accuses PETA and its justifiers.
|10.10.05 @ 7:11PM|#
"So how do you reconcile all the poor vegetables you've killed
over the years?"
That whole central nervous system thingie most animals have seems
like a pretty important difference between them and veggies as far
as this discussion is concerned. There's certainly room for decent
people to disagree on which animals feel pain and how much, but
they're fundamentally different from plants in this regard, and the
above argument is obviously a strawman.
|10.10.05 @ 7:15PM|#
Evan, I was asking because I don't know why PETA isn't picketing steak houses. Maybe they are, I don't know. I just don't know why fur is considered by some to be more cruel than steak.
|10.10.05 @ 7:16PM|#
"So, what's the difference between wearing fur and eating
steak?"
In theory, nothing. In practice, there is a large and growing
industry of meat producers who exercise humane practices while
raising and killing their livestock.
I suppose somebody could come up with a line of free range mink
coats.
|10.10.05 @ 7:22PM|#
That whole central nervous system thingie most animals have
seems like a pretty important difference between them and veggies
as far as this discussion is concerned.
Yes, that is a difference...but I just don't think that it
is sufficient to support the argument that, "in this day and age,
we really don't need to be killing animals for any reason", as
lowdog said.
|10.10.05 @ 7:25PM|#
OK, I'm a steak-gobbler who has almost zero sympathy for the
PETA creeps and even thinks fur looks kinda nice on a woman (or the
occasional stylish pimp). But that essay goes overboard in the
other direction.
When I read this sentence:
There is no greater privilege for an animal, which otherwise
would scurry around, eat, shit, breed and then die, than to be made
into a fur coat, which can be worn and admired for
generations.
... I had a flashback to an old horror moving starring Fay Wray (of
King Kong fame) called The Vampire Bat. At one point, the
mad scientist is holding Fay Wray prisoner in his lab and is gonna
perform some kind of experiment on her. I forget what, but it
wasn't anything pleasant. And he says something like, "But you see,
my dear ... I'm going to make you immortal!" Creependous.
I mean, eat it, wear it if you need to or want to, but don't try to
say you're doing it some kind of favor.
|10.10.05 @ 7:32PM|#
Is it possible that the article is meant as a parody? (If it is, it's not a very good one.)
|10.10.05 @ 7:46PM|#
Evan - for the record, I consume animals for sustenance and wear
their skins, mainly as shoes. I guess I should have put "was" in
italics.
Anyway, yes, the nervous system thing is rather large. But I
honestly don't like killing any living thing. Not to say that I
don't or I won't. I kill a cockroach if I see it, spiders, too.
They may feel fear and pain, but I don't care because I don't like
them.
How's that for an objective argument? :)
Really, I wasn't trying to draw any set lines...as I said, I was
raised with animals and have always had a certain affinity with
them, and they me (my friends call me St Francis of Assisi). But
while I like plants, and "feel bad" when I kill a house plant or
when a tree gets cut down, I can't frolick in the yard with a tree,
whereas I can with my dog.
This is obviously an area of conflict with me...not necessarily
something I speak of with detached logic. Makes me seem almost
human? :)
|10.10.05 @ 7:46PM|#
Others have pointed out the intrinsic weaknesses of this piece:
the strawman argument that it makes concerning PETA (rabbits have
THE SAME rights as humans), the black-and-white distinction between
the human and animal world which in no way hold up under biological
scrutiny, the silly coat-is-objectively-better-thank-live-mink
positting, and the idea that fox hunting could ever be more
exhilerating than golf.
I'm not one to love rabbits (too much research exposure - in fact,
I hate the little f*ckers, as does anyone who truly knows them),
but all mammals have the limbic structures that enable them to feel
fear, pain, sadness, happiness, etc. To posit otherwise is
inconsistent with biology. Any pet owner knows better, since dogs
who have been beaten frequently will behave is a traumatized human
would. To equate this with a spinal reflex is profoundly
stupid.
Animals most certainly lack the capacity to accurately forsee their
doom in the fur-factory, but that doesn't mean that they don't feel
fear in unknown or unfamiliar circumstances (just as you might feel
afraid of a flying saucer hovering over your house, even if you
don't know that the thing pointed at you is really a death
ray).
In fact, there is a very real field of animal psychiatry, wherin
people study animal behavior to, among other things, reduce the
fear that animals feel entering a slaughterhouse, where a cow
freezing in terror would block the flow of traffic and slow the
whole works up.
The upshot of all of this is that animals are probably more
sensitive about their environments than we are, since we have
complex mental structures that allow us to classify most of the
world as harmless.
Bunnies don't. That's why they always bolt away from me when I go
riding my bicycle along the trail. Or maybe I once operated on one
of their ancestors, and they hold me dimly in their genetic
memory...
Anyway, get this tripe off the front page. You're making the mag
look bad. And us by association.
|10.10.05 @ 7:59PM|#
What about the killing of babies who don't understand time of
day or the concept of dying or pain?
Does a baby actively value its life when it gets hurt in some way?
Or does it respond similarly to the chicken and pain?
drf|10.10.05 @ 8:30PM|#
JARED!
are you saying that babies taste like chicken???
what a modest proposal...
|10.10.05 @ 9:08PM|#
Jared, you're either an idiot...or a highly respected bioethicist from Princeton.
|10.10.05 @ 9:33PM|#
Well, do young babies understand the concept of time when born?
Or have a different understanding of pain from most animals? I
don't see that's so idiotic to ask...
And to compare a babies taste to chicken because I made the
comparison to a chickens reflex is a sign if ignorance and
immaturity.
Everyone knows a baby is more like veal. Neither really move around
too much allowing for perfect uncorrupted meat.
|10.10.05 @ 9:40PM|#
|10.10.05 @ 9:41PM|#
Oh, and strike the word "generally" from my previous post. I don't know of any plant species that has a brain. (Unless there is one extant, and then you can all worship my genius.)
|10.10.05 @ 9:44PM|#
Jared,
LOL.
Does anyone here think that it wasn't a mistake to post this stinky
essay?
|10.10.05 @ 9:50PM|#
I just completely came to my senses with regard to the
implications of my last post insinuating that I am a brain-bearing
vegetable of some kind.
*sigh*
|10.10.05 @ 10:01PM|#
joe:
What's the name of the fallacy he engages in with the chicken
example? He provides an example of reflexive action by a harmed
animal, and concludes from it that all action by harmed animals is
reflexive.
He commits: Converting a conditional (If P, then Q.
Therefore if Q, then P.)
|10.10.05 @ 10:47PM|#
These postings are full of yet more evidence to support my
hypothesis that owning pets can do serious damage to a person's
socialization skills with humans.
Those who conflate a chimp or dolphin with a mink commit the same
error as the author of this essay.
Jim Murphy|10.10.05 @ 10:51PM|#
Like Ali G says, "becoming a fur is the only way out of the ghetto for some animals"
|10.10.05 @ 10:59PM|#
Please tell me this piece was some kind of sick joke. I'm not a big fan of PETA, but I'm just astonished that Reason would see fit to publish this.. I really have no words. "Unconscionable trash" would be a start, I guess.
|10.10.05 @ 11:00PM|#
mediageek,
Just about all plants can respond to sensory stimulus in some way;
venus flytraps are just one of the coolest. But like you said none
of them have anything remotely resembling a brain, and it would be
quite a stretch to suggest they experience anything like the pain
that even relatively simple animals can apparently
experience.
But yeah, I also don't think I've known any vegetarians whose
explicit reason for not eating meat is the CNS. But I have known
some who seem to be doing that at least implicitly in their choice
of what animals they'll eat. I've also known a surprising number
who won't touch any birds or mammals but have no problem eating
fish - and they're not remotely Catholic. I dated one for a while
and never really understood it, but that was OK because she could
do great things with salmon.
I also wonder if Yankees can feel pain. If so I hope they're in for
a world of hurt tonight.
|10.10.05 @ 11:35PM|#
No plants even have a nervous system. It's not necessary to have
one to respond to outside stimuli, not in the least.
For the venus flytrap and how it closes, read
this.
And for how plants "see," see
this.
|10.10.05 @ 11:42PM|#
I doubt minks or any other animal gives a shit about what's
ennobling. I am fairly certain that minks do feel something..
mostly bitterness and hatred, because they're vile little creatures
that seem to have been created for wearing. You can also make a
passing mock-terrapin stew out of them though musk rat's
better.
I find it ennobling that my body will be consumed by some form of
life. Odds are those very small creatures won't spend much time
thinking about me while they devour my corpse. I wonder if the
bacteria that live in my body think it's ennobling for me to host
them?
|10.11.05 @ 12:30AM|#
It's one thing to criticize PETA and other anti-fur groups, but
to argue that torturing animals is ok is truly disgusting.
I've come across similar arguments on other libertarian website,
and here it is on probably one of the biggest libertarian web site
around. It makes me *ashamed* that I used to be a card carrying
libertarian.
Spike
|10.11.05 @ 1:14AM|#
you can't torture animals. you can only torture people. only in that pets are *owned* do they have "rights". animal cruelty laws are therefore unconstitutional. the constitution and the law only cover people. animals are not people. you can't be cruel to animals.
|10.11.05 @ 1:22AM|#
But aren't most animal torture laws state based anyways? How are they unconstitutional then. Can't a state say "you can't torture animals"?
|10.11.05 @ 2:25AM|#
I think evolution will take care of this problem and in 20 millenia we will all be naturally furry.
|10.11.05 @ 2:40AM|#
i should clarify. you can't be legally "cruel" to animals no matter what you do to them. what's the difference between cats and flies? that cats are furry? state animal cruelty laws won't stand up, esp if roberts (a strict constructionist) is in charge..
|10.11.05 @ 7:45AM|#
I'm a carnivore who wears fur, but when I read this article I
thought it was a (very badly written) parody. Seriously,
Reason editors, if this is the best pro-fur piece
you can find, then for God's sake just ignore the topic
altogether.
Is O'Neill a friend or relative of an editor? Because I can't
imagine this piece being accepted for publication on its own
merits, unless the guy who accepted it was cataclysmically
stoned.
|10.11.05 @ 7:48AM|#
what's the difference between cats and flies? that cats are
furry?
No, that humans have a complicatd millennia-old social relationship
with cats, dogs and other domesticated animals that they don't have
with flies. This is so patently obvious that it barely requires
mentioning. At least I would think so.
state animal cruelty laws won't stand up, esp if roberts (a
strict constructionist) is in charge..
By what Bizarro-world conception of the Constitution would a strict
constructionist believe that the Constitution gives the Supreme
Court the right to strike down a state law prohibiting
animal-cruelty? On what grounds?
|10.11.05 @ 7:51AM|#
Oh, crap. You guys aren't putting this in the print edition, are
you? Don't you think libertarians are marginalized enough
already?
Maybe O'Neill is a PETA member in disguise trying to make the other
side look bad? You know, the way a pro-choice person might pretend
to be anti-abortion and write letters to the editor insisting that
women who have abortions should get the death penalty?
|10.11.05 @ 8:09AM|#
I can't imagine this piece being accepted for publication on
its own merits, unless the guy who accepted it was cataclysmically
stoned.
I see that Jennifer has finally come around to seeing that drugs
are bad, and no amount of waste or damage to human lives could
dis-ennoble an idea as well founded as the War on Drugs.
|10.11.05 @ 8:14AM|#
Nope, Carl, drugs aren't bad, but sometimes people under the influence of drugs make decisions that turn out, in retrospect, to be pretty stupid. I'm hoping this piece is one of them, because the alternative is the thought that Reason editors can make such bonehead decisions without taking drugs first.
|10.11.05 @ 8:32AM|#
FACE-SAVING DRUG EXCUSES FOR THE EDITORS:
Marijuana Yeah, like, I was really stoned and when I read
this piece I just couldn't stop laughing! It was a lot funnier the
first time I read it.
LSD I was at one with the universe, and I thought this
piece did such a perfect job of explaining how humans and
animals interact with the--what was I talking about again? Anyway,
the giant purple dragon that crawled out of the article wants me to
turn his scales into a coat.
Meth You know how the government says meth turns people
into mindless zombies? Well, when I read this piece I was mindless
enough to think it was good.
Cocaine I'm the king of the motherfucking world! Reason is
the best motherfucking magazine ever! This is the best
motherfucking article ever! BOO-YAH!!!!
|10.11.05 @ 9:27AM|#
I love eating meat, and in fact eat too much of it. At the same
time (and not by myself I am happy to see)the idea that it ennobles
an animal to have it become the narcissistic plaything of some
insipid model is revolting. I would say it ennobles an animal to be
eaten (especially because it eats things too), but not to become a
toy. The whole idea disgusts me.
And why would Reason post such an article? Because they are more
interested in prompting discussion than in simply plopping up the
party line-- "here's another article in favor of libertarianism!
Read this and nod smugly and then use it in an argument with your
commie friends." I for one am glad to see something here that
doesn't coax me into some kind of agreement.
Just my two cents of course.
eric
|10.11.05 @ 9:35AM|#
I for one am glad to see something here that doesn't coax me
into some kind of agreement.
Fine, then, but do you think this magazine should preach to the
converted, or try to find new converts, or--as this article will
do--demonstrate to NON-libertarians that libertarianism is indeed a
bullshit, assholish philosophy? I stopped reading "Skeptical
Enquirer" magazine in part because I was sick to death of cover
stories like "Yet another 1,000 reasons why creationism is
bullshit" and "We once again prove that alien abduction stories are
a load of crap."
May as well change the slogan from "Free minds, free markets" to "A
shitload of solipsistic assholes."
|10.11.05 @ 9:38AM|#
I think we should all demand our money back from this free site for this crappy free article!
|10.11.05 @ 10:25AM|#
Jennifer,
I take your point, but I still wonder if the most "libertarianish"
thing we can do is just recognize people are going to say crap that
is 1) illogical, and 2) morally repugnant. It doesn't mean we can't
go on the offensive against it-- it just means we have to
acknowledge it was said (and, of course, not have them thrown in
prison for saying, etc.). I think the problem most people are
having here is that it seems the editors are condoning what the guy
was saying. But I don't see that, because no one in the reason
"establishment" has made an opinion; I see them as defending that
old truism of Voltaire's "I may not agree with what you say, but
(blah blah blah, we all know it)." That is to say, regardless of
the magazine's opinion, there is an acceptance of people saying
things that are not popular-- and I agree with that. I just don't
see how that's solipsistic. Still, the guy who wrote the editorial
seems like an asshole.
I await the wrath of Jennifer! :)
eric
|10.11.05 @ 10:48AM|#
I still wonder if the most "libertarianish" thing we can do
is just recognize people are going to say crap that is 1)
illogical, and 2) morally repugnant. It doesn't mean we can't go on
the offensive against it-- it just means we have to acknowledge it
was said (and, of course, not have them thrown in prison for
saying, etc.)
Of COURSE people will say dumbass things, and certainly nobody
should try to censor such people; the question is, should
this magazine pay for and publish such articles?
You say we shouldn't asusme this reflects the viewpoint of the
magazine as a whole; why the hell not? Why would Reason print an
article if they didn't think the article represented its viewpoint?
(After all, though Reason supports the right of Communists to
publish their ideas I haven't seen any pro-Communism articles here,
nor would I expect to.)
Hell, there are people out there who say things like "Black people
are inferior and fit for nothing but slavery;" they certainly have
the right to say this, but if Reason ever printed such garbage I'd
pull a Mona and cancel my subscription.
A couple of Christmases ago my boyfriend bought me a book called
"Everything you know is wrong." It was printed by some company that
tries to take a Bold Stance against Corporate Media and so forth.
And who knows? Maybe some of the stories they print about the guys
in power being Absolute Evil are true! Problem is, the book also
contains articles on bullshit topics like "The Hare Krishnas are
right--Humanity and the earth have co-existed for six billion
years." So, since SOME of that book is obviously a big ol' steaming
pile of bullshit, I don't trust ANYTHING that book has to say. And
Reason risks doing the same thing with stupid stories like this
one.
In all seriousness, reading this magazine is one of the things that
helped nudge me toward libertarianism. But if THIS article had been
the first thing I ever read in this magazine, it would also have
been the ONLY thing I ever read here.
|10.11.05 @ 10:52AM|#
"what's the difference between cats and flies?"
Cats have a central nervous system sufficiently advanced that they
can not only feel pain, but wish to avoid it. Flies don't.
|10.11.05 @ 11:03AM|#
Dhex--
Yes, it is Disinfo. And I don't understand why anybody with a
legitimate story to get out there would want to associate
themselves with that fruitcake publication. That Hare Krishna
thing--holy shit. It made Creationists look sane.
|10.11.05 @ 11:07AM|#
"you can't torture animals. you can only torture people. only in
that pets are *owned* do they have "rights". animal cruelty laws
are therefore unconstitutional. the constitution and the law only
cover people. animals are not people. you can't be cruel to
animals."
Does that mean that before the government decided to view women as
"persons", that laws against excessive force against women (such as
the rule-of-thumb law) were unconstitutional, and thus wrong
?
Spike
|10.11.05 @ 11:31AM|#
Support for the right to torture animals is a libertarian
position. The Reason publishers didn't want to come out and say so,
so instead they published a very dishonest article that used
eighteenth century science to support the idea that animals
(including mammals) don't feel pain.
This article also combined the issue of PETA and animal torture to
make it seem that only PETA wakos would be against animal
torture.
In a libertarian world, animal torture would be perfectly legal. If
some psycho moved in next to you and decided that his hobby was
torturing animals, your only legal recourse would be noise
complaints, caused by the screams of the animals (easily solved by
cutting their vocal cords).
Spike
|10.11.05 @ 11:39AM|#
"easily solved by cutting their vocal cords"
Wrong Spike. That would take all the fun out of the torture.
You'd need to use lots of pillows or a sound-proof room.
|10.11.05 @ 11:50AM|#
Oh, goody. Another thread to add to my collection of reasons why nobody votes libertarian and everybody thinks we're a bunch of psychotic fucking loons.
|10.11.05 @ 11:59AM|#
Ok, somebody needs to 'fess up. Who's trying to poke the hornet nest by posting as Spike?
Raymond37|10.11.05 @ 12:00PM|#
Like many people here I disagree with O'Neil's assertions - I especially don't like that he seems to be portaying his position as a mainstream Libertarian stance or something..unless one equates Libertarianism to mean "anything goes if it make ME personally happy"...I also find his personal rantings very elitist to say the least - perhaps he should actually put down his mocha java and go see a "fur ranch" firsthand to see just how the animals there are treated firsthand? And no, I'm not a member of PETA but I do belong to the Humane Society.
|10.11.05 @ 12:00PM|#
D'jever cut a loon's vocal cords?
That hooting sound they make is so annoying.
|10.11.05 @ 12:07PM|#
I think people are misreading Spike. I think he's criticizing libertarianism for its neutral-at-best position on animal torture, calling it a bug rather than a feature. In his first post, he was quoting "grigory" from upthread and trying to show the absurdity of his position; and in his second he was illustrating what would happen in a world where animal torture was not universally condemned. (The clue is: This article also combined the issue of PETA and animal torture to make it seem that only PETA wakos would be against animal torture.; Spike is saying that it's unfair to try to categorize animal-torture opponents as only belonging to the fringe.)
|10.11.05 @ 12:13PM|#
Actually, Jennifer, I think the majority of commenters are
dissenting from the article, which reflects rather well on
libertarians.
Must...resist...cheap shot...
|10.11.05 @ 12:23PM|#
Actually, Jennifer, I think the majority of commenters are
dissenting from the article, which reflects rather well on
libertarians.
If this crap makes it into the print edition, people looking
through it won't read the Hit and Run comments. And this crap in a
libertarian magazine would NOT reflect well on libertarians.
|10.11.05 @ 12:25PM|#
Phil, where have libertarians ever said that they have a neutral or positive outlook on animal cruelty?
|10.11.05 @ 12:37PM|#
Sorry, mediageek, I should have said, "Spike is criticizing
libertarianism for his perception of a neutral-at-best position on
animal torture." A perception that he should have been disabused of
by reading the thread, but maybe he considers grigory to be the
archetype libertarian.
joe, it may surprise you to know that I came to libertarianism via
an animal-rights-lite pathway. Which is to say, I was a vegetarian
and supporter of humane animal treatment first, then came to
understand that if animals should be generally free to pursue their
own interests at their own motivation without interference or harm
from others, so should people.
|10.11.05 @ 1:22PM|#
Phil, gotcha.
I find your reasoning for coming to libertarianism from a somewhat
animal-rightsy viewpoint pretty interesting. Never thought of it
that way.
|10.11.05 @ 2:14PM|#
"And this crap in a libertarian magazine would NOT reflect well
on libertarians."
Jennifer,
I day say most here care not about their reflections, nor anyone
elses much.
|10.11.05 @ 2:25PM|#
I swear, I have the sneaking suspicion the editors put this up
just to piss everyone off. Now, the hard question is whether or not
we should apply the same ethical standards to animals as to humans
(brings to my mind Robert Nozick's question "why can't we use Kant
for people and Utilitarianism for animals?"). I've been
equivocating in my classes all day, so I won't stop now. Basically,
I'm not comfortable with PETA's formulation (I'm kind of
uncomfortable with Kantian deontology in general anyway), and yet I
still am a naturalist and don't acknowledge any essential
difference between man and any other animal. So, am I being
inconsistent (or, can you be inconsistent having not yet formulated
a rationally thought-through position)?
Jennifer, I'll agree with you to the point that it could (and
might) look bad-- but it still seems relevant to add that most
libertarians aren't practically speaking trying to convert, but
rather to complicate the issues (at least that's how I see myself
as a libertarian). The best thing I can possibly say about the
whole thing is that, while most people here essentially agree,
we're all still able to fight and bitch at each other about
it.
As far as it goes, I'm not so much against fur as against assuming
that human manipulation can automatically ennoble something. There
seems to be a anthropomorphism inherent in such a statement.
eric
|10.11.05 @ 2:45PM|#
cartman,
Did you say "responsible" Reason editor?
That's laying a heavy philosophical burden on someone, isn't it,
eh, eric mattingly?
|10.11.05 @ 2:55PM|#
most libertarians aren't practically speaking trying to
convert,
Then the next time there's an election they need to stop whining
"How come everybody, even the Nazi Communist Childmolesting
Slaveholder party, got more votes than WE did?"
dhex|10.11.05 @ 3:16PM|#
"Yes, it is Disinfo. And I don't understand why anybody with a
legitimate story to get out there would want to associate
themselves with that fruitcake publication."
well, um, that's disinfo, you know. that's their thing. weirdness.
etc.
the books edited by russ kick tend to be sort of shitty, a lot of
village voice lite type stuff and the occasional illuminati
tardation.
the books edited by richard metzger are much better, even if
they're far weirder. i actually wrote a disinfo brief back in the
day when they were a website (on muslimgauze).
|10.11.05 @ 4:05PM|#
well, um, that's disinfo, you know. that's their thing.
weirdness. etc.
I'm all for weirdness, but not at the expense of truth. And I'm
wondering why people with actual STORIES--like abuse-by-cops or
corruption-in-government--would want their articles published in a
situation where they'd have to share space with Hare Krishnas
explaining that humanity instantly appeared out of the blue five
billion years ago.
|10.11.05 @ 4:11PM|#
I'm all for heavy philosophical burdens (I would rather life be
one giant intellectual conundrum than the thoughtless recourse to
ideology it so often seems to be-- and which, alas, I am also
guilty of doing).
One thing, at least as I've seen, libertarians don't seem to bitch
much when their party doesn't win elections (again, practically, it
never does). Most of the bitching comes about before elections and
in response to specific issues. The question is, regarding this
particular one, is it even a libertarian issue at all? Most of us
object to the article, but not necessarily to say that "fur is
wrong" (though there's some of that too of course). Most of the
objections stem from the guy's callousness toward our little
cousins-- not to mention the hokey science.
I'll end with a simple statement of preference: I always prefer
civil conversation (curse words and all) to talk of models wearing
the fur of aborted lamb fetuses on their heads. Now can anybody
object to that?
|10.11.05 @ 4:30PM|#
"talk of models wearing the fur of aborted lamb fetuses on their
heads. Now can anybody object to that?"
As long as fashion items are just on their heads, whilst their
bodies remain nekkid.
Hoo baby!
fyodor|10.11.05 @ 4:47PM|#
Then the next time there's an election they need to stop
whining "How come everybody, even the Nazi Communist Childmolesting
Slaveholder party, got more votes than WE did?"
Most libertarians (note the small "l") don't give a rat's ass about
the LP, much less identify with it as WE. Though I admit the
minority who do often make the most noise right around election
time. And you're right, that does about sum up what they say.
Well...other than thoreau! :-)
|10.11.05 @ 10:49PM|#
"Sorry, mediageek, I should have said, "Spike is criticizing
libertarianism for his perception of a neutral-at-best position on
animal torture." A perception that he should have been disabused of
by reading the thread, but maybe he considers grigory to be the
archetype libertarian."
Sorry, but support for the right to torture animals is a
libertarian position. Try googling "Libertarianism" + "animal
rights" + "torture" for some enlightening reading.
The basic argument is that only adult humans have full rights
(because of their reasoning abilities).
Because children and brain damaged (or brain diminished) humans
have less (sometimes much less) reasoning abilities, they should
not have the same rights as adult humans.
But because children (and brain damaged/diminished adults) are in
the same category (i.e. human) as adult humans, they should be
afforded some rights (i.e. legal protections).
The argument continues, that because animals (other than the human
animal) should not be afforded full rights, that they should not be
afforded *any* rights.
The writers argue though they themselves are shocked and horrified
by animals torture, that any laws against animal torture would be a
slippery slope towards state intrusions on our liberties.
One writer even argued that if your neighbor is abusing his dog and
it bothers you, that you should trespass onto the abusers property
and rescue the dog. If you are arrested, you should be confident
that jury nullification would save you from jail.
Why laws against child abuse are ok but that nothing equivalent
could be done for animals is not explained. But at least I haven't
come across any libertarians arguing that laws against child abuse
are tyranny.
If I'm wrong, and the libertarian orthodoxy really does support
laws that protect animals against torture, then I would like to see
Reason publish an article saying so. It's the least they can do
after publishing the above piece of shit by Mr. O'Dell.
Spike
|10.11.05 @ 11:03PM|#
The question is not, can they reason? Nor, can they talk? But, can they suffer?
|10.12.05 @ 3:20AM|#
I guess my puppyhide coat with a sumptuous fur lining made from week old kittens will stay in the closet this season.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245