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
Hugs for Puppies
Hugs for Puppies is the actual name of an animal rights
group in Phiadelphia that has been making headlines by picketing
restaurants that serve foie gras in a bid to make Philly
foie-gras free, like Chicago:
[Chef David] Ansill cq, who owns the boutique restaurants Ansill and Pif, called the protests "self-defeating. People who didn't know what foie gras is, now they are interested in trying it. We sell a little more when they are out here. I thought about hiring them."...
He added that at Ansill, "it is one of our signature dishes, shirred eggs with truffles and cream with a little piece of foie gras on top. But I have now made the foie gras optional on that dish. . . . I'm not forcing anybody to eat it. If you want to eat it, eat it. If you don't, don't."
Hug for Puppies are well-known troublemakers:
In 2004, an FBI task force raided [a house shared by many Hugs for Puppies members], searching for materials related to a campaign to shut down an animal-testing company. Cooney and other members targeted Huntingdon Life Sciences, protesting at its New Jersey headquarters and at the homes of employees and business associates. Cooney also was accused in 2004 of violating a court order restricting protests against a corporate executive.
TallDave|6.6.07 @ 12:32PM|#
Hugs For Puppies? What about the kittens?
Won't someone please think of the kittens???
|6.6.07 @ 12:33PM|#
Drew Carey was right. Animal rights activists aren't interested
in saving all of the animals. Just the cute ones.
I'll give 'em some cred when they start "Hugs for Gators."
Brian Sorgatz|6.6.07 @ 12:34PM|#
As I write this comment, this is another phantom post written by nobody, like "Pictures of Reason Make Me Feel So Wonderful."
|6.6.07 @ 12:37PM|#
Did I miss something? What does foie-gras have to do with
puppies?
I will gladly hug a puppy, anyway. Anytime, anyplace!
Brian Sorgatz|6.6.07 @ 12:42PM|#
Now that I know that that group exists, I'm hungry for a puppy steak.
|6.6.07 @ 12:43PM|#
Did I miss the part where the government was somehow involved
here? "Libertarian" does not necessarily mean anti-animal welfare,
Katherine... I would expect you'd be applauding the picketers for
trying a market-based solution to the issue instead of passing
legislation.
Regardless of your position on the latter, foie gras *is* often
made using unpleasant and distasteful methods, and I've got no
problem with anyone trying to convince people not to eat it.
|6.6.07 @ 12:47PM|#
I always hug my jack russell puppy, right after it kills a
rabbit or mouse (swallows the cute little mice, with their little
twitching noses. whole).
I will hug my german shorthaired pointer, everytime it finds me a
pheasant or grouse to kill. I love my puppies.
|6.6.07 @ 12:48PM|#
I agree that people should be able to eat (or smoke or view or
whatever) what they want. However, foie gras involves torturing
ducks by ramming food down their throats until their stomachs
explode. Does this proposition not violate even the most basic
sense of decency? Our rights end when they infringe upon the rights
of others (and by "others" I mean other living things with their
own interests, including ducks). The simple truth is that if most
people saw foie gras being made, they would join the
protesters.
I consider myself a Libertarian (who is also a vegetarian), but I
don't support a market for foie gras any more than I support a
market for slaves.
Brian Sorgatz|6.6.07 @ 12:48PM|#
Geoff,
You're missing the important points of the story. The name "Hugs
for Puppies" indicates an alarming degree of sentimentality--and
obvious "lookism" with regard to the species they fight for. And
are the rest of us presumably *against* letting people hug
puppies?
|6.6.07 @ 12:50PM|#
"in a bid to make Philly foie-gras free, like Chicago"
I suspect that Katherine's concern lies not in the "market-based"
part of it so much as the "Chicago" part of this. Chicago didn't
let the market decide to make it unprofitable to serve foie gras;
Chicago legislated it so. And THAT'S why it's a "libertarian
issue".
Just sayin'..
CB
|6.6.07 @ 12:50PM|#
However, foie gras involves torturing ducks by ramming food
down their throats until their stomachs explode.
I don't think I believe you. Evidence?
Dave W.|6.6.07 @ 12:51PM|#
In 2004, an FBI task force raided [a house shared by many
Hugs for Puppies members], searching for materials related to a
campaign to shut down an animal-testing company. Cooney and other
members targeted Huntingdon Life Sciences, protesting at its New
Jersey headquarters and at the homes of employees and business
associates.
Raiding homes good. Protesting at homes bad.
"Well, we didn't actually find any plans to do a crime here, so
let's just disseminate what we did find so that p.r. flaks at
Reason flaks can make these troublemakers sound real scary
to the Hit'n'Runners."
It is possible to be a libertarian and still against animal
cruelty, btw. It is also possible to be unduly cruel to animals in
the production of food. Foie gras and puppy dogs may be a
rhetorically stupid angle, but this is not generally a good arena
for big yuks from corporatarians either.
|6.6.07 @ 12:52PM|#
Did you have to post this right before lunch? Dang now I'm really hungry. Office lunch today at Mexican joint. Not that there's any foie-gras for a hundred miles.
|6.6.07 @ 12:55PM|#
Freemarket -
I've never met another libertarian vegetarian. Bravo
I was not aware that fois gras was such a greusome process. I too
would like a link or something
|6.6.07 @ 12:56PM|#
However, foie gras involves torturing ducks by ramming food
down their throats until their stomachs explode.
This would be false, as a duck with an exploded stomach is dead and
cannot grow a yummy fatty liver.
People who didn't know what foie gras is, now they are
interested in trying it. We sell a little more when they are out
here.
The nannies will never understand human nature, and are thus doomed
to lives of frustrated, cramped unhappiness. As it should be.
|6.6.07 @ 12:58PM|#
I understand that force-feeding actually causes no pain to the ducks/geese, and definitely doesn't make their stomachs explode. (I'd think their livers would be useless as food if that did happen!) Is this incorrect?
Brian Sorgatz|6.6.07 @ 1:00PM|#
Freemarket (and all other foie gras opponents here),
In a libertarian community of omnivores, laws to make the eating of
animals "cruelty-free" will tend to drive up the price of animal
protein for those who most desperately need it for their manual
labor. Excessive kindness to animals is cruelty to some
disadvantaged humans.
|6.6.07 @ 1:00PM|#
oh, and may I go on record that (while I no longer eat it) Duck
Pate is so incredibly delicious and fatty, especially on a little
piece of baguette with maybe some cornichons, and a little
wine.
Mmmmmmmm
Grotius|6.6.07 @ 1:02PM|#
Give me foie gras or give me death!
When you are feeding the critter you are taking advantage of its
natural gorging aspect. Apparently they have no gag reflex because
they've evolved to literally gorge their food.
Brian Sorgatz|6.6.07 @ 1:04PM|#
To complete my thought from my last comment, other kinds of meat are made with about as much "cruelty" as foie gras, aren't they? Or is foie gras being singled out because of its reputation as a delicacy for the super-rich, who self-evidently deserve our scorn?
|6.6.07 @ 1:08PM|#
mediageek | June 6, 2007, 12:33pm | #
Drew Carey was right. Animal rights activists aren't interested in
saving all of the animals. Just the cute ones.
Drew Carey?
Denis Leary did a bit on cute animals on "No Cure for Cancer."
|6.6.07 @ 1:10PM|#
Freemarket (and all other foie gras opponents here),
In a libertarian community of omnivores, laws to make the eating of
animals "cruelty-free" will tend to drive up the price of animal
protein for those who most desperately need it for their manual
labor. Excessive kindness to animals is cruelty to some
disadvantaged humans.
I'm sorry, this argument doesn't make any sense. The cost of manual
labor would go up, and in this way society would share the cost of
the cruelty-free animal production. That being said, in a
libertarian community, there would be no such laws.
Brian Sorgatz|6.6.07 @ 1:11PM|#
Drew Carey?
Denis Leary did a bit on cute animals on "No Cure for
Cancer."
The movement has been fertile ground for David Cross, Paul Reiser,
and Nick DiPaolo, too. (The last of those is, of course, another
priest of the Church of the Fonz
besides Nick Gillespie.)
Grotius|6.6.07 @ 1:12PM|#
Brian Sorgatz,
Some amount of pain is involved in the process of getting any slab
of meat to the table. That has always been the case. Some people
find that morally reprehensible, but I don't.
|6.6.07 @ 1:14PM|#
Apparently they have no gag reflex because they've evolved
to literally gorge their food.
You're wrong Grotius. They were intelligently designed to gorge
their food, so that man could enjoy the taste of their fattened
livers.
Brian Sorgatz|6.6.07 @ 1:20PM|#
I'm sorry, this argument doesn't make any sense. The cost of
manual labor would go up, and in this way society would share the
cost of the cruelty-free animal production. That being said, in
a libertarian community, there would be no such
laws.
Since I don't believe that minimum-wage laws magically improve
things for the working poor, I don't think your policy proposal
would have the consequences you intend from it.
|6.6.07 @ 1:20PM|#
"In 2006 Philadelphia City Counilman Jack Kelly introduced a
bill to ban the sale of foie gras in Philadelphia! This bill,
similar to the one that was overwhelmingly passed in Chicago last
year, will be voted on some time during 2007."
-Taken from the "Hugs for Puppies" website.
Market-based solution via protest my ass.
|6.6.07 @ 1:24PM|#
"…laws to make the eating of animals "cruelty-free" will tend to
drive up the price of animal protein for those who most desperately
need it for their manual labor."
So no manual labor is done in India where most people are Hindu and
therefore abstain from eating meat? Meat is the only source of
protein? Fascinating!
Brian Sorgatz|6.6.07 @ 1:24PM|#
Reinmoose,
If I follow your reasoning correctly, the spike in labor costs
brought on by the stricter laws against animal cruelty that you
favor would make everybody share the cost equally. I see the same
problem in this logic as in the argument for the minimum wage.
Brian Sorgatz|6.6.07 @ 1:25PM|#
jailbait,
Do some research before commenting. Indians are not all
vegetarians, although devout Hindus abstain from eating
beef specifically.
wiki|6.6.07 @ 1:29PM|#
kind of like that thing they say about watching sausage being
made
http://drvino.com/2006/08/03/goose-gitmo/
|6.6.07 @ 1:34PM|#
Brian,
If you read back a bit, you were the first one to mention creating
laws against animal cruelty in meat production. I merely was
commenting that YOUR conclusion on what would happen was basic. If
anyone is behaving like an ignorant liberal, it is you by
suggesting that a policy only has a simplified effect on one
party.
...drive up the price of animal protein for those who most
desperately need it for their manual labor uses the same
reasoning process where advocates of the minimum wage think that
eliminating it would mean that all poor people everywhere would
starve and nobody would be able to afford to live. Both conclusions
assume that all other prices remain constant, which is
bullshit.
Oh, and I don't think I ever used the word "equally," not that that
matters.
|6.6.07 @ 1:53PM|#
"Our rights end when they infringe upon the rights of others
(and by "others" I mean other living things with their own
interests, including ducks)."
Where do you live freemarket? How did you manage to not displace
some type of living thing; including the icky things like snakes,
with their own interest when you moved in? You need to do some soul
searching on why you are succumbing to "lookism". Icky animqals
have rights too. Most animal rights people have animals mixed up
with Disney characters.
My son has cystic fibrosis. The drugs that may someday extend his
life require animal testing. The animal rights nutters mistaking
rabbits with cartoon characters and stuffed animals infringe on my
son's right to live.
A vegitarian diet would make my son starve to death. I wish I could
get him to eat foie gras; the more the better. He needs 150-200%
more fats and protein than normal just to maintain his weight at
the 5th percentile.
thoreau|6.6.07 @ 1:56PM|#
A few weeks ago I had cream of lentil soup with foie gras at Bistro D'Oc in DC. Damn was that good!
stephen the goldberger|6.6.07 @ 1:56PM|#
The fact is that whether or not the shift in relative prices for
the product is "cruel" is irrelevent. The fact that protein is more
expensive means nothing the only thing that should matter in regard
to the laws is whether or not some party's rights are being
violated. If you believe that the animal's rights are through Fois
Gras production, then a law should be passed to protect said
animals. If not then don't pass the law.
By focusing on the result of a law on the price of a good, you are
falling into the trap of trying to use gov't laws to shape a good's
price in order to serve one group over another (i.e. poor
people)
stephen the goldberger|6.6.07 @ 1:59PM|#
sorry that was horribly written
main point - the purpose of laws is to protect people (and perhaps
animals)'s rights, not to create economies which are beneficial to
society.
|6.6.07 @ 2:03PM|#
MayorOmalley- the FDA is doing more damage to your son than animal rights advocates.
Brian E|6.6.07 @ 2:08PM|#
I love the picture on this story. Presumably they know what cute retrievers do with ducks and geese, right?
GILMORE|6.6.07 @ 2:08PM|#
1) Fuck ducks
2) Hugs for puppies has an *annual report*
http://www.hugsforpuppies.org/downloads/2006Report.pdf
They spent 34% of their 2006 budget on 'miscellaneous'. :) ahh.
sweet miscellany.
These people are a real party. Stupid magnets!
================================
Cops Failed us, Say Le Bec-Fin Foie Gras 4
From the Philadelphia Inquirer
By Stu Bykofsky | May 21, 2007
THEY CAME TO Le Bec-Fin to protest despicable foie gras and
received despicable treatment from cops and a drunken flasher, they
say.
The Foie Gras 4 - Dezeray Rubinchik, Mark Fonda, Deanna Calderaio
and David Lambdon - picketed the expensive, exclusive French
restaurant Friday, May 11, to protest foie gras on the menu.
Foie gras is French for "fatty liver." To make it, helpless male
ducks are force-fed up to four pounds of grain by having tubes
jammed down their throats two or three times a day for two weeks.
The "feedings" stress the duck's liver, exploding it up to 10 times
normal size.
That's torture, the protesters say.
After notifying the police's Civil Affairs Unit they would picket
Le Bec-Fin, they arrived around 8 p.m. and began shouting and
chanting along the curb. They can be loud.
Civil Affairs had not arrived, but within a few minutes a police
car pulled up. Two uniformed cops got out and observed.
Problems began when a Le Bec-Fin patron - a fiftyish, big-bellied,
white male, well-dressed and drunk, according to all accounts -
left Le Bec-Fin and got in Rubinchik's face. "At 6-5, the man was
quite intimidating as he stood so close to me, yelling in my face,"
says Rubinchik, 29.
The two cops didn't twitch.
By several accounts, the man screamed, jumped and danced around on
the sidewalk, yelling, "This is what foie gras did to me."
He fell, Rubinchik says, got up screaming and then fell twice more,
possibly on purpose.
The two cops didn't twitch.
Fearing for her safety, Rubinchik asked them to detain the oaf for
being drunk or disorderly.
The two cops twitched.
"We were then told to 'f--- off' " by Officer Chisholm, says
Rubinchik, who took names - Chisholm's partner's name was Wallace -
and notes. She's filed a complaint with the 9th District.
The drunk then stepped inside Le Bec-Fin and "pulled out his penis
for nearly 10 seconds and pushed it against the glass door at us
while he snickered and jeered," says Rubinchik. He "was shaking it
at us," says Calderaio, 29.
That sickened her more than foie gras.
When protesters asked the cops to arrest the flasher for indecent
exposure, instead of service they got abuse. Chisholm "told us to
'go f--- yourselves,' " Rubinchik says.
The flasher was allowed to slip away through Le Bec-Fin's back
door. I left messages asking chef/owner Georges Perrier to identify
the prize package, but he did not respond.
Neither did the Police Department, when I called to speak to
Wallace and Chisholm. However, Internal Affairs confirmed that its
officers are investigating Rubinchik's complaint.
So is the ACLU.
Three observers confirmed the protesters' account. Philadelphia
schoolteacher Diana Eberhardt, 58, saw the fracas unfold after
returning a DVD to TLA Video. She says the drunk was "aggressive"
and was "harassing" the Foie Gras 4.
When Eberhardt asked police to step in, they refused. When she
asked again, she says, Officer Wallace told her, "If you don't
leave, I'll put you in the car."
She stood her ground - and Wallace put the totally innocent
bystander in the police car, observers told me.
Rubinchik yelled for him to arrest her instead, and Chisholm
"pushed me with two hands," she says.
Eberhardt was released after a half-hour by a just-arriving Civil
Affairs sergeant, who apologized for the bad treatment.
A witness who was watching from across Walnut Street, Emily
Scanlon, 24, tells me the flasher was being "drunk and obnoxious"
for 20 minutes. When he loosened his pants, she thought he was
going to moon the crowd, but "he pulled his genitals out and shook
them."
Another witness, Samantha Tramontina, 23, calls it "insulting" and
says "he was trying to start a fight with the protesters."
If what the observers and protesters say checks out, Chisholm and
Wallace need extra training, starting with a lecture about how
their badge means they are to protect citizens, not bully
them.
E-mail stubyko@phillynews.com or call 215-854-5977. For recent
columns:
http://go.philly.com/byko."
Jennifer|6.6.07 @ 2:10PM|#
Most animal rights people have animals mixed up with Disney
characters.
Worse than that--they have animals mixed up with humans. It's true
that a human being would suffer greatly if force-fed the way a foie
gras duck is. However (forgive me for stating the obvious here),
HUMANS AND DUCKS ARE BIOLOGICALLY QUITE DIFFERENT. But the
animal-rights extremists don't take that into consideration;
instead, they assume "Since I would suffer pain under these
circumstances, the ducks must suffer pain as well, because there's
really no difference between primate and waterfowl biology."
|6.6.07 @ 2:23PM|#
Based on the tone of his article, I would say that Stu Bykofsky is the fifth member of Hugs for Puppies targetting le Bec-Fin.
GILMORE|6.6.07 @ 2:29PM|#
RC Cola =
The writer was indeed using adjectives in places he shouldnt have.
There is bias in choosing to characterize the restaurant as
'expensive, exclusive', while not bothering to describe the
protestors ('shabby? odiforous?')
At the same time, anything that wasnt a O'Reilly style screed
probably comes off as 'partisan!' to you, because you're half nuts
just like these people, albeit on the opposite end of the spectrum
of monomania.
Dave W.|6.6.07 @ 2:29PM|#
Worse than that--they have animals mixed up with humans.
It's true that a human being would suffer greatly if force-fed the
way a foie gras duck is. However (forgive me for stating the
obvious here), HUMANS AND DUCKS ARE BIOLOGICALLY QUITE DIFFERENT.
But the animal-rights extremists don't take that into
consideration; instead, they assume "Since I would suffer pain
under these circumstances, the ducks must suffer pain as well,
because there's really no difference between primate and waterfowl
biology."
One day a long time ago I flew off the handle at jennifer and said
mean things about her I shouldn't have said. After that I promised
not to say mean things about jennifer. She isn't making it easy on
me today.
|6.6.07 @ 2:33PM|#
I believe that the most intelligent animals should have some
rights, maybe even legal protection, in much the same way children
and mentally retarded humans do (while not having all of the rights
afforded to adults), but for all the libertarian reasons, I suspect
that legal protection (coercive blah blah barrel of a gun blah
blah...) would not be very effective or wise until a large majority
of the populace agree with me wholeheartedly anyway (making abuse
rare).
I think the best course for animal-huggers is to spend their
efforts persuading people, rather than being violent jerks. I think
they'll win eventually, too, and that the violent jerks will just
slow it down.
Then again, I think libertarians will win elections some day
too...
(That said, there's good evidence that foie gras is not
particularly cruel.)
|6.6.07 @ 2:47PM|#
Presumably they know what cute retrievers do with ducks and
geese, right?
Actually, Brian, retrievers do not actually hurt ducks and geese.
The birds are already dead due to someone having shot them.
A good retriever does not leave a mark of any kind on the bird.
Jennifer|6.6.07 @ 2:50PM|#
I promised not to say mean things about jennifer. She isn't
making it easy on me today.
Don't let misguided chivalry dictate your comments, Dave. If I'm
wrong to say there are differences between human and duck anatomy,
by all means set me straight.
Ellie|6.6.07 @ 3:02PM|#
Excessive kindness to animals is cruelty to some
disadvantaged humans.
Woohoo! I'm a heartless bastard at last!
Anyway, despite their methods, how can you not love a group called
"Hugs for Puppies"? Just a little?
lunchstealer|6.6.07 @ 3:04PM|#
I typically see PETA et al as being fundamentally identical to
Operation Rescue. In both cases they have sympathetic, voiceless
groups that they are advocating for. They have some legitimate
grounds for their concerns.
And they're absolute dicks in the way they go about their business,
through intimidation and attempts to revile their opponents, and
their inflammatory propaganda which skirts the edge of advocating
violence and which certainly does drive people into true violence a
la ALF and Eric Rudolph.
Someone upthread explained that the force-feeding of ducks causes
their stomachs to explode. This is an innocent misinterpretation of
some intentionally misleading language used by animal rights
activists. They often refer to the force feedings causing the
animals "livers to explode to ten times their normal size", by
which they actually mean to expand to ten times their
normal size. But the true statement doesn't invoke the required
level of cruelty.
I've never eaten foie gras, and I'm not unsympathetic to the idea
that it might be cruel. But I just can't believe their propaganda,
because I don't think they respect my right to disagree. I think
they'll say anything to get foie gras stopped.
Another Phil|6.6.07 @ 3:07PM|#
Jennifer,
You're using the same fallacy that you're accusing the animal
rights people of. Ducks' central nervous systems are not
qualitatively different from ours. Based on their behavior, it
seems pretty obvious that they can't reason (much, at least). But
it's not at all obvious that they don't suffer pain.
I'm another libertarian vegetarian, by the way. However, I outgrew
the notion that animals have rights a long time ago. Rights define
specific entitlements to political freedom. In order to implement
political rights, all parties must abide by the limits they
describe (i.e. not violating the rights of others), or be punished
when they don't. It's just as absurd to complain about other
animals violating humans' rights as it is to try to define the
concept of rights to include other animals.
From what I understand, foie gras production is cruel (so
is most egg production, for that matter). However, it is not
properly a political issue.
Timothy|6.6.07 @ 3:08PM|#
Jennifer: Well, I don't know much about ducks, but I do know that I have a spiral penis. So maybe humans are like ducks after all...
|6.6.07 @ 3:09PM|#
Freemarket, re: your statement: "I consider myself a Libertarian
(who is also a vegetarian), but I don't support a market for foie
gras any more than I support a market for slaves."
Do you mean "don't support" as in, "I refuse to buy foie gras, and
will try to convince others not to do so also" OR "I will try to
get the legislature to shut down this part of the free market, thus
making a mockery of my handle?"
If anyone thinks Hugs For Puppies is gonna stop at just picketing,
and not try to ram legislation down our throats (pun intended), you
don't have a firm grasp on how statist the animal rights crowd can
be.
Dave W.|6.6.07 @ 3:13PM|#
by all means set me straight
Check out "Another Phil's" answer -- he explains it pretty well,
especially the idea that egg production may be equally bad.
I do disagree with Another Phil that it is not properly a political
issue. At some margin of cruelty and lack of utility, it should be.
You really have to look at the costs and benefits at a detailed
level, though, to know when the law needs be involved.
Sometimes I miss the original Phil because I only said mean things
to him when he deserved them.
Jennifer|6.6.07 @ 3:14PM|#
You're using the same fallacy that you're accusing the
animal rights people of. Ducks' central nervous systems are not
qualitatively different from ours. Based on their behavior, it
seems pretty obvious that they can't reason (much, at least). But
it's not at all obvious that they don't suffer pain.
When did I say ducks don't suffer pain? I said that force-feeding
them doesn't cause them pain as it would in a human. (Also, snakes
don't suffer the pain a human would when forced to swallow
something bigger than their own head.)
|6.6.07 @ 3:18PM|#
"Brian Sorgatz | June 6, 2007, 1:25pm | #
jailbait,
Do some research before commenting. Indians are not all
vegetarians, although devout Hindus abstain from eating beef
specifically."
Ummm, do a little research yourself, Brian. Devout Hindus are
vegetarians, not just abstaining from beef, because they believe in
Karma and reincarnation, and thus believe that people who act badly
will be reincarnated as animals. Thus, eating such reincarnated
beings is the equivalent of cannibalism and brings bad Karma upon
oneself, increasing the likelihood of an unpleasant reincarnation
for oneself.
GILMORE|6.6.07 @ 3:19PM|#
I once went duck hunting without a dog
We just blasted a few out of the sky while we drank jim beam and
said,"man this is much better than the nintendo version". We did
not bother to recover and provide their remains either a proper
burial, or dress them and eat them.
Should i feel bad?
lunchstealer|6.6.07 @ 3:29PM|#
Another Phil - Jennifer is probably referring to a comment by
Grotius upthread on physiological oddities wherein ducks are
evolved to be able to gorge more or less as foie gras production
simulates, thus ducks wouldn't feel as much discomfort as other
animals would under the same circumstances.
I can't speak to the veracity of this comment, but I will say that
this apparently is what Jennifer was suggesting. Not the tired
chestnut that animals don't feel pain.
|6.6.07 @ 3:38PM|#
lunchstealer -
I agree with you that orgs like PETA are "absolute dicks" and
aren't always honest in their propaganda. (Unfortunately, that may
be the most effective way of getting the most unreasonable people,
who make up the majority of the population, to take to their cause)
They misrepresent entire groups (PETA is frequently associated with
vegetarians) and cause absolute hostility toward entire groups of
well-meaning people.
*Jennifer - I recognize that you attached the word "extremists" to
"animal-rights," which makes your rant decidedly less hateful than
MayorOmalleySuxs
lunchstealer|6.6.07 @ 3:38PM|#
Also, if egg production is equally bad, why has foie gras been
singled out? My feeling is that it is because it is seen as an
'elite' food, and people like to spoil elites' fun. Is fox hunting
really any crueler than other forms of hunting? Probably not, but
boy is it fun to stick it to the aristocracy.
If they had gotten as much publicity against egg production as they
have against foie gras production, they'd probably have at least
gotten a few vegetarians to cut eggs out of thier diets, and
probably a lot of omnivores too. Even getting a small reduction in
egg consumption could save far more animals than banning foie gras
outright, given the minscule foie gras market in the US.
Like I say, I don't have a horse in this race, but I find the
motivation and methods of the anti-foie gras crowd suspect.
|6.6.07 @ 3:43PM|#
I thought we went over this the other day but, many Hindus practice vegetarianism, they are not vegan, they supplement their diet with milk and egg products. This group, Hugs for Puppies, is a vegan organization that gets its money by appealing to people as an "animal advocacy" group.
|6.6.07 @ 3:47PM|#
Why don't slaughterhouses have webcams on the kill floor? Wouldn't this be more effective than paying for the FDA and all of its regulations regarding meat?
Dave W.|6.6.07 @ 3:48PM|#
Also, if egg production is equally bad, why has foie gras
been singled out?
because animal cruelty is a multi-variable calculus for most
thinking people, and the degree of utility that humans get from the
pain caused to the animals matter. Animal rights activists forget
this when they trash drug research labs. Hit'n'Runners forget this
when they realize that eggs are more important for helping people
meet minimal dietary needs than foie gras is.
Dave W.|6.6.07 @ 4:02PM|#
"Hit'n'Runners forget this when they realize that eggs are more
important for helping people meet minimal dietary needs than foie
gras is."
should have been:
--Hit'n'Runners forget this when they conflate cruelty in egg
production with cruelty in foie gras production.--
daffy|6.6.07 @ 4:05PM|#
I once went dog hunting without a duck
We just blasted a few while we drank MD20/20 and said,"man this is
much better than the nintendo version". We did not bother to
recover and provide their remains either a proper burial, or dress
them and eat them.
Should i feel bad?
Another Phil|6.6.07 @ 4:36PM|#
When did I say ducks don't suffer pain? I said that
force-feeding them doesn't cause them pain as it would in a human.
(Also, snakes don't suffer the pain a human would when forced to
swallow something bigger than their own head.)
OK. I was imprecise. I stand by the general thrust of my previous
post though. You accuse the animal people of making an unsupported
assertion based on an inaccurate conflation of primate and bird
physiology. You then counter by making another unsupported
assertion: that force-feeding geese doesn't cause them pain.
Furthermore, the snake example is a non-sequitur. So, different
species have different qualities. They also have similar ones.
Neither observation contributes to the argument. What
specific difference in bird physiology prevents them from
feeling pain from repeated force-feeding?
Another Phil|6.6.07 @ 4:48PM|#
lunchstealer,
I think they're singling out foie gras because they think they have
a chance at getting it banned. There is absolutely no chance of
getting eggs banned, or requiring free-range egg production.
Also, some people really do cut out all eggs and dairy (and even
honey for some people) from their diet. I did it for about two
years in my early twenties. I was usually hungry and wasn't able to
eat in many restaurants. I'm still a vegetarian; but I eat eggs and
dairy. I haven't eaten meat in 25 years. For me, it wasn't much of
a sacrifice. I was one of those kids who wouldn't eat their meat,
complaining that it had too much fat on it. I know it's hard for a
meat lover to believe, but I don't miss it a bit. At this point in
my life, if I did, I would probably start eating it again.
|6.6.07 @ 4:58PM|#
"Hit'n'Runners forget this when they realize that eggs are more important for helping people meet minimal dietary needs than foie gras is."
should have been:
--Hit'n'Runners forget this when they conflate cruelty in egg production with cruelty in foie gras production.--
Dave, did you just diss
yourself?
|6.6.07 @ 5:01PM|#
So, different species have different qualities. They also
have similar ones. Neither observation contributes to the argument.
What specific difference in bird physiology prevents them from
feeling pain from repeated force-feeding?
Actually, I just felt compelled to look this up -- not just because
I am a dick (although I can be), but because I actually like
animals and would honestly like to know whether these animals are
suffering.
From
Force Feeding: An Examination of Available Scientific Evidence
(PDF file!)
------ begin quote ------
A. Does Force-Feeding Cause Stress?
... Stress levels in birds can be gauged through the measurement of
corticosterone blood levels. ... In measuring corticosterone levels
of ducks kept in group pens, clinical study showed no significant
increase in stress levels except after the first instance of
force-feeding and strongly suggested that increased stress
measurements resulted from holding the ducks rather than from the
actual force-feeding. ...
B. Assessing Claims that Force-feeding Induces
Pain
The presence of pain in animals may be difficult to measure
scientifically because animals can only express themselves through
behavior. Neuroscience, however, provides information about the
nervous system that can help us to assess the incidence of pain.
Experiments involving the visceral nervous system, which computes
sensory and motor information from organs including the digestive
tract and related secretary glands, have been carried out to assess
potential signs of pain in ducks at different stages of the
force-feeding period (Servière et al., 2002).
Neural activation indicating the presence of pain signals were
never detected in the sensory visceral brain centers of force-fed
ducks (Servière et al., 2003). Although there is a need for further
scientific investigations, the data provided do not demonstrate the
presence of major pain-induced signs in the nervous system of
force-fed mule ducks.
[Why no pain?] This absence of pain indicators
likely results from anatomical specificity of the waterfowl
involved in foie gras production. For example, ducks and geese,
like many other bird species, are able to swallow large preys.
Consequently, the inside diameter of the upper part of the
esophagus, which is essentially an expandable elongated pouch in
waterfowl, the pseudo-crop sac, is comparatively larger than in
mammals and is not circled by cartilaginous rings, explaining the
capacity to swallow large objects. Its volume ranges from 600 to
800 cm3 in mule ducks (Guy), while it is reported to be smaller in
geese (below 500 cm3) (Leprettre etal., 2002). For this reason,
each meal with geese will have a smaller volume than with mule
ducks, though the number of daily meals with geese will be higher.
In addition, this pouch is located at the level of the neck
(25-35cm long) allowing full expansion under the elastic skin of
the neck, without any compression of the organs present in the
thoracic cavity. It also allows the birds to potentially absorb
large amounts of food, which is stored there before being
progressively released. The pseudo-crop sac membrane is covered
with keratin, which provides a mechanical resistance capacity much
higher than the epithelium of most mammals. Another specificity
resides in the fact that the opening of the trachea sits in the
middle of the tongue. Thanks to the collapsing action of tongue
muscles since this anatomical feature allows ducks to eat and
absorb water under the water without drowning. This specificity
explains why, as long as the procedure is carried under proper
conditions, ducks do not have the upper respiratory tract blocked
by the force fed meal, a criticism which is often raised by
opponents. ...
C. Are Ducks and Geese Frightened by the Force-Feeder
and/or Force-Feeding?
... In mule ducks, the response was more ambiguous. Generally, mule
ducks are fearful, social and very sensitive to any environmental
factors (e.g., change of the experimenter or in the timetable) that
will affect behavioral responses. Additional experimentation,
however, demonstrated that the flight distance of ducks [i.e., how
close you could get to them before they tried to escape] was higher
in front of an unknown person than with the caretaker who performed
force-feeding daily (Faure etal., 2001). Empirical observations
with geese delivered similar results. Furthermore, there was no
development of aversion to the operator throughout the
force-feeding period. In fact,the flight distance lessened with
time. Moreover, familiarization limited the amplitude of the
physiological responses to physical stress (Guémené et al., 2002;
Servière et al., 2003), as well as behavioral reactions of fear in
specific experimental tests (Guémené et al., 2002;2006).
---- end quote -----
Ashish George|6.6.07 @ 5:19PM|#
Here is an alternative perspective to Stevo's:
"The problems of the force feeding procedure are: (1) handling by
humans which, in the commercial force feeding situation, can cause
aversion and discomfort for ducks and geese, (2) the potentially
damaging and distressing effects of the tube which is inserted into
the oesophagus, (3) the rapid intubation of a large volume of food.
. . ducks at the end of the force feeding period can have serious
injuries to the oesophagus. . . It seems likely that birds have
sufficient damage to oesophagus tissue, caused by the force feeding
process to have been painful to the birds.. . There is good
evidence that liver structure and function that would be classified
as normal is severely altered and compromised in force fed ducks
and geese. . . because normal liver function is seriously impaired
in birds with the hyperatrophied liver which occurs at the end of
force feeding the level of steatosis should be considered
pathological. . . It is clear that steatosis and other effects of
force feeding are lethal when the procedures are continued."
That's from a report called "Welfare Aspects of the Production of
Foie Gras in Ducks and Geese" by the European Scientific Committee
on Animal Health and Animal Welfare.
http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scah/out17_en.pdf
Here is a photo gallery of the conditions of the birds:
http://www.goveg.com/photos_ducksgeese.asp
And here is Robert Nozick on how we should approach animal welfare
issues vis-a-vis the pleasure we get from eating animal
products:
http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/nozick01.htm
Dave W.|6.6.07 @ 5:24PM|#
Thanks to both Stevo Darkly and Ashish George! I was hoping for this kind of info on this thd. No easy answers, of course, but nice to have some fact-laden perspectives.
highnumber|6.6.07 @ 5:25PM|#
Good show, Stevo! Urkobold loves foie gras.
If you would like to know what the American Veterinary Medical
Association thinks about foie gras, read
here
Short story:
...the observations and practical experience shared by HOD [AVMA House of Delegates] members indicate a minimum of adverse effects on the birds involved. Therefore, delegates decided it is not necessary for the AVMA to take a position on foie gras production at this time.
lunchstealer|6.6.07 @ 5:28PM|#
AP, Stevo's response explains that yes, there is some
physiological reason to think that the experience is something that
ducks are actually well suited for, and that it does not cause
significant stress. People consider how WE'D feel in judging
force-feeding to be horrible. However, as anyone who's watched a
heron eat a fish three times wider than its throat can tell you,
the throat anatomy of birds is significantly different to mammalian
physiology, and what would cause excruciating pain to a human would
be no problem for a duck.
I've got a lot of vegan friends, so I'm well aware that the only
animal product a healthy human being needs is breastmilk for the
first few months of life (dunno when you can wean to a vegan diet,
developmentally). I'm probably just too lazy to do it for dietary
reasons. I'm even sympathetic when presented as a 'wouldn't you
like to know you're not making another animal live its life for
you?' argument. But when PETA tells me I'm a murderer, I remember
how tasty bacon is, and want to eat it in front of them, just to
piss them off.
And yeah, they've got a chance of getting foie gras banned, and
banning to save half a million birds is better to them than
persuading people to freely reduce or eliminate eggs from their
diet and only getting a 5% reduction that saves tens of millions of
birds per year.
They'd rather tell rich people what to do than persuade regular
people to do the right thing. Because they're imperious dicks who
get their rocks off from telling bad people how bad they are.
Dave W.|6.6.07 @ 5:33PM|#
Dave, did you just diss yourself?
No, but I am not surprised you pointed up this apparent
contradiction. To explain my (conflicted) feelings:
- when considering animal cruelty in food production, I think it is
more important to consider more massively produced foods than
luxury items like foie gras.
- however, more massively produced food, especially if they are
cheap sources of protein tend to be more important to get humankind
to a decent comfort level than an exotic item like foie gras
- which means that I think people should spend more time thinking
about egg production than foie gras production, but also to be
relatively more comfortable with higher levels of cruelty
- that said, I wish I knew more about: (i) how painful egg
production is for the chickens (I assume the chicken fetusues don't
feel pain); and (ii) how much the price of eggs would rise for poor
people if a good faith effort was made to reduce cruelty at a
sensible margin.
I wouldn't say I dissed myself, so much as I have mixed feelings on
an important subject. For example, in 2004 and 2005, I gave up beef
and pork for two years for moral reasons, but did not try to get it
banned or discourage my family. Then in 2006, I started up again.
It is just a hard issue is all.
|6.6.07 @ 5:33PM|#
highnumber,
Why isn't Hit & Run highlighting the Mexican attempt to starve
America of the vital substance, tequila? You'd think they would,
given their heretofore reasonable skepticism about ethanol, but
there's nothing. Only silence. Bought and paid for by Big
Corn.
At least Urkobold
retains its journalistic integrity. By the way, when are
you posting your foie gras expose? Or, at least, the recipe for the
same?
D.A. Ridgely|6.6.07 @ 5:40PM|#
I consider myself a Libertarian (who is also a vegetarian),
but I don't support a market for foie gras any more than I support
a market for slaves.
[Insert "What sort of wine do you serve with slave?' joke
here.]
lunchstealer|6.6.07 @ 5:43PM|#
And Amish George, while there is some evidence that foie-gras production actually mimmicks a natural process that geese undergo naturally to fatten up for the fall migration, it is not implausible that the liver effects of the force-feeding would have long-term health effects for the ducks and geese in question. So it would be cruel NOT to eat them! :P
highnumber|6.6.07 @ 5:43PM|#
ProGLib,
Still too busy fretting about tequila and enjoying Glenn Mercer's
fabulous new solo album, Wheels in Motion.
Available on
Amazon and
eMusic
|6.6.07 @ 5:48PM|#
Understood. We'll get you through the tequila withdrawal period somehow, highnumber.
lunchstealer|6.6.07 @ 6:02PM|#
^#, Have you considered scotch? While a bit pricier, I find a
good single malt scotch to often be very much the equal in
complexity and depth of flavor to a high-quality tequila.
I'm not saying we shouldn't get tequila production back up
immediately, I'm just suggesting something to help you through the
lean times (especially since agave production will have a long time
to ramp back up).
|6.6.07 @ 6:07PM|#
lunchstealer,
That's all very reasonable, but what's the point of having the
greatest military power of all time if you can't use it to
"persuade" your neighbors to keep on supplying cheap tequila?
It's bad for a Scottish scion to admit, but I can't stand Scotch.
Maybe it'd work for highnumber, though.
lunchstealer|6.6.07 @ 6:15PM|#
I agree. But as long as the juniper supply isn't threatened, I'm good.
|6.6.07 @ 6:15PM|#
""Libertarian" does not necessarily mean anti-animal welfare,
Katherine... I would expect you'd be applauding the picketers for
trying a market-based solution to the issue instead of passing
legislation."
You'd think that, but the libertarian movement in the US has been a
tool of conservatism pretty much since its inception, and boy,
conservatives hate those tree-huggin' animal kissin' hippies
(actually honest conservatives with little corporate connections
are very concerned about environmental/animal welfare concerns,
check out American Conservative now and then). I'm guessing this is
because honestly conservative ideas are such a hard sell to many
folks, especially young people. But dressing that whore up in
libertarian mini-skirts will get more people to buy the pitched
woo. A little independent thought will convince most reasonable
folks quickly that a real libertarianism has much more to fear from
conservatism than liberalism (the latter openly professes expanding
liberty though their definition of liberty involves a positive
element that frighttens most liberttarians, conservatives are often
quite honest that they think liberty=license=bad thing). It's also
probably a function of the handful of think tanks that define
libertarianism being in bed with right wing ones (probably because
think tinks tend to be born from dead rich guy foundations, and
dead rich guys have a lot of interest in keeping folks voting
GOP).
highnumber|6.6.07 @ 6:19PM|#
lunchstealer, ProGLib,
My second choice is good ol'merican bourbon.
Nothing could replace tequila, though.
lunchstealer|6.6.07 @ 6:22PM|#
Mmm bourbon. Ever tried Buffalo Trace? Often cheaper than JD, but as good as Knob Creek. Although when crackerin' it up, there's nothing better than a traveller of Jim Beam.
highnumber|6.6.07 @ 6:32PM|#
I have had Buffalo Trace. I remember it tasting fine.
I don't think I've ever actually "crackered it up," however. Born
& raised in Chicagoland, I get uncomfortable at Cracker Barrel
restaurants. In Atlanta, I check the trees for "strange fruit."
When I walk into a Waffle House I ask if they have anyone who
speaks English.
|6.6.07 @ 8:07PM|#
Dave W.,
that said, I wish I knew more about: (i) how painful egg production is for the chickens (I assume the chicken fetusues don't feel pain);
Fear not! "Factory Farmed" chicken eggs, as well as most "Free
Range" eggs are not fertilized by a rooster. Hence, they are not
fetuses.
DosCentimos|6.6.07 @ 10:09PM|#
Count me among those who recently tried foie gras solely to spite the holier-than-thou crowd.
|6.6.07 @ 10:44PM|#
So many of you here should be ashamed of yourselves. There's no reason whatsoever to be hostile towards those peacefully trying to change how people think about something, nor is there any reason for this knee-jerk "I'll go stab a cow for fun" bullshit either. Grow up!
|6.6.07 @ 11:00PM|#
There's no reason whatsoever to be hostile towards those
peacefully trying to change how people think about
something,
They're not "peacefully trying to change how people think".
They're lobbying to pass a LAW. That means they're willing to see
people killed if the violate said law. That's what laws mean.
Frankly, I get pretty hostile when people talk about being willing
to have people like me killed.
|6.7.07 @ 12:01AM|#
The animal rights movement presents the same problem for libertarian theory that pro-lifers do. They see torturing animals, or aborting fetuses, as being as immoral (probably more) as libertarians see forcibly taking one's land or fraudently taking the fruits of their labor, or enslaving someone. They see it as wrong. And just like libertarians think the law should step in and stop what they consider to be immoral from occurring (i.e., enslaving someone, taking their land by force with cops to make a mini-mall or swindling investors), so do they.
|6.7.07 @ 12:31AM|#
Ashish George quotes this: "It is clear that steatosis and other
effects of force feeding are lethal when the procedures are
continued."
Ummm, killing chickens and geese to eat them is lethal. So, is
killing them ethical, but somewhat harming their health unethical?
Please.
|6.7.07 @ 12:55AM|#
Ken, the animal rights thing and the pro-life thing are not
comparable. Pro-life libertarians such as me feel that at some
point a fertilized egg transitions into a human being. And, while
where that point occurs is certainly debateable, whether very soon
after conception, right after delivery, or (where most people,
including me, see it) somewhere in between, can any libertarian
stand by in good conscience and see what they consider a human
being to be deprived of life? So, that's a real tricky situation
because of that ambiguity as to when human life begins.
But, the animal rights folks are trying to extend those same
protections to non-humans -- and usually only cuddly-looking
non-humans to boot. So is depriving humans of their freedom to
choose in order to protect the "rights" of cuddly-looking
non-humans libertarianism? Unlike the abortion question, there's no
comparable ambiguity there -- animals are not human beings, and
forcibly depriving people of their freedom to choose for the sake
of animal "rights" is wrong.
highnumber|6.7.07 @ 2:19AM|#
The animal rights movement presents the same problem for
libertarian theory that pro-lifers do.
No, they don't. I'll talk about abortion with you. I'll talk about
animal rights with you.
I will not conflate the two.
Grotius|6.7.07 @ 7:43AM|#
The great thing about capitalism - well one of the great things about capitalism - is that it has made foie gras far less of a luxury item. Compared to thirty or forty years ago it is (adjusted for inflation, etc.) far cheaper to buy. A change in technology explains this trend in part. Anyway, at one time (prior to WWII basically) foie gras was an item one had on special occassions and that is no longer really the case. One can now eat it year around relatively cheaply. So chalk up another victory for capitalism!
Grotius|6.7.07 @ 8:13AM|#
Anyway, I do think that these bans and attempted bans do increase foie gras sales (and business for French restaurants in general), at least temporarily.
|6.7.07 @ 9:19AM|#
jh and highnumber, you're missing the point. As I SAID both the
animal rights movement and the pro-life movement make moral claims,
that x (abortion for one, animal torture for the other) is
fundamentally immoral and so someone should step and prevent it. IF
you agree with either premise then you can't simply holler "choice,
liberty!" in response, any more than you can talk about one's
freedome to have slaves.
Now, I think you are also wrong to dismiss a conflation between a
fetus and many animals. You should check out the work of Tom Regan
on this subject. As he points out, to just say "well, fetuses are
human and animals ar not" just invites the next question: why is
that morally relevant (it makes as much sense to say, if they
existed, "well, Martians are not humans so let's torture them", we
have to find out if Martians have any of the stuff that humans do
that make us morally worthy of respect, to whatever degree demands
moral respect). And you must not know many serious
environmentalists to say that they just want to protect cuddly
animals, another post on HR went on about their attempt to protect
SALMON, harldy cuddly there).
highnumber|6.7.07 @ 11:23AM|#
Ken,
Are you really stuck on how humans and animals are different?
Where do you, Ken, draw the line?
Mammals, warm blooded animals, vertebrates?
|6.7.07 @ 12:53PM|#
What in your opinion makes humans special? Intelligence or
rationality? Well dogs have that at the same level of an 18 month
old, so is it ok to experiment on one and not the other? Is it
because we feel pain? Surely so do most animals. Is it because they
are the same species as us? Well why not ratchet that up another
level and only morall respect people of the same 'race.' Or is it,
as many of folks fall back on in this argument, the classic "cuz
the Bible told me so?"
To answer your other question, I personally think that within the
animal kingdom their is quite a continuum of rationality, feeling
and intelligence with chimps and dogs on the high end and shrimp
and such on the low end. But of course, this is true for humans
too, right (which is why kids are circumsized very young, people
are convinced their lack of sentience at this point makes it less
bad on them).
|6.7.07 @ 12:55PM|#
By the way highnumber, most animal rights profs I've read push hard for the idea of moral weight being given to fetuses, since they tend to focus on the capacity to feel pain that both share as being the morally relevant criteria.
|6.7.07 @ 1:40PM|#
Ken,
The crucial distinction between animals and humans is that humans
are all part of one gene pool and animals are not. The offspring of
other humans are potential mates of your offspring.
If you don't accept that fundamental distinction, then you open up
several Pandora's boxes -- you'll have radical environmentalists
trying to use the government to prevent anyone from building power
plants, using cars, building houses, or doing any other human
activity that benefits humans at the expense of wildlife -- i.e.,
ALL human activity. You'll have Hindus trying to use government to
force us to all become vegetarians, to prevent killing any animals,
on the grounds that those animals are reincarnated human beings.
You'll have Jainists trying to use government to prevent killing
even tiny insects. No doubt there'll be a few whackjobs trying to
prevent us from killing deadly pathogens, because Isn't All Life
Sacred?
You accept the equality of animals with humans, you allow virtually
unlimited government meddling in the affairs of humans, because of
the new rule of no initiation of force upon any living being, with
no differentiation between humans and non-humans.
VM|6.7.07 @ 1:48PM|#
Foie gras is tasty.
Playing around with the cute little piglets is fun.
Suckling pig is tasty.
Geese aren't fun.
It somehow completes the circle of life. Highnumber, YOU ARE the
rocket man.
*looks for something in closet that isn't there
|6.7.07 @ 2:32PM|#
"The crucial distinction between animals and humans is that
humans are all part of one gene pool and animals are not. The
offspring of other humans are potential mates of your
offspring."
This is the crucial distinction, that those within the human gene
pool deserve moral weight? If you think about it, you just said
"the thing that makes humans special as a class is that they are
members of the class called humans."
XaabaZu|6.7.07 @ 3:00PM|#
Gosh, I was about to indulge in hamburger, but Ken's shrill hectoring has certainly convinced me that that would be wrong. Instead I am going to eat a handful of gravel, because eating any living thing would be wrong.
highnumber|6.7.07 @ 3:19PM|#
Shrill hectoring? You are too generous, XaabaZu. It is
nonsense.
Ken,
Honestly, do you not see that humans are different than the rest of
the animals? That we are supra-animals?
lunchstealer|6.7.07 @ 3:31PM|#
I think the crucial difference between humans and animals is
that animals are tasty.
Octopi are not tasty, but are kind of ugly, so I feel that they
should be left unmolested, unless they get in the way. Then Boom!
Flat as a pancake.
Seriously, though, I do get where Ken is coming from. The
animal-rights, pro-life, and even abolitionist movements all
expanded legal protections to people who weren't condsidered 'real'
people by the general populace. We can quibble about genetics (I've
always felt the DNA test was useful from a legal standpoint, but
meaningless from a philosophical standpoint) or the ability to feel
pain or emote or fear death. But ultimately these are questions of
what organisms get assigned the rights and priviliges that we claim
for ourselves.
Animal slaughter and abortion should not be conflated, but the
moral feelings of their opponents are nontheless comparable.
|6.7.07 @ 4:22PM|#
"Animal slaughter and abortion should not be conflated, but the
moral feelings of their opponents are nontheless comparable."
Well, that was the point I was making, though again, I think the
two can be conflated plenty. Especially when the stellar arguments
so far as to why humans deserve moral weight and animals don't have
been these logical nightmares:
"Honestly, do you not see that humans are different than the rest
of the animals? That we are supra-animals?" This is I guess
argument through sheer repetition, as I have asked several times
for you to give me a or the characteristic that humans possess, and
animals do not, that gives the former moral weight. And please, not
this one again:
"The crucial distinction between animals and humans is that humans
are all part of one gene pool and animals are not." That humans are
special because they are humans. Please read what a circular
argument is before you, well, go around that way again.
|6.7.07 @ 4:29PM|#
Let me give you my moral principle first: that it is morally wrong to injure anything to the extent that it a. feels pain, and b. is intelligent. I'm not sure about fetuses on b., but humans have a and b, so I won't hamr them for no really good reason. But here is the catch, dogs have some of a and b, in fact I think they have about as much as an 18 month old child (well, actually cognitive psychologists who study dog intelligence have given that estimate). Now, you have to take into account some potentiality of course (that 18 month old will some day be a highly rational, intelligent, feeling human, and yes I do think humans are supra-animals when it comes to the first two and that it is ok to weight us HIGHER, but it is wrong to not weight most animals somehwere on the moral calculus). But you see, if we had some human who was 'retarded' or brain injured who had a 18 month old capacity I still think it would be wrong to, say, test cosmetics on him. But I think the same goes for the dog. Saying , well one is human and one is not is not to say anything morally relevant, again, what's so special about humans (and I've just told you that I think they ARE special and why).
VM|6.7.07 @ 4:36PM|#
Lunch - dunno.
how tasty is a fetus?
cuz foie gras is crazy delicious!
mmm.
*adjusts collar on baby seal fur coat
|6.7.07 @ 5:21PM|#
Fetus, schmetus. I want human caviar. I'm not sure how many billions of ova it'd take, but I have a feeling it's gonna be delicious.
|6.7.07 @ 10:03PM|#
Ken, you win. It is circular reasoning on my part to say that
people are all members of the same gene pool, and animals are not,
and that we should give more weight to members of our species than
to other carbon-based forms of life. So, all species are equally
precious, and deserve the same treatment under the law --or lack
thereof.
Now if you'll excuse me, based on this lack of distinction you
espouse, I'm gonna go take Jonathan Swift's advise and eat a
delicious baked Irish baby. Mmmmm. Tasty! And no more morally wrong
than eating KFC!
|6.7.07 @ 10:06PM|#
"Intelligence or rationality? Well dogs have that at the same
level of an 18 month old"
That is a more difficult equation to make than you imply here. Most
18 month old children are moving from single word utterances to
multiword utterances. Dogs, not so much. Dogs, the bestest smartest
dogs in the world, have only a fraction of the receptive vocabulary
of a typical 18 month old.
A grown dog, however, might have a more sophisticated social
ability than a typical 18 month old, it could be argued.
|6.8.07 @ 8:30AM|#
Neu Mejican-You are absolutely right. It is a difficult
equivalence, the psychologists I read were making a rough estimate
admitting that there would be many a rough edge. The point holds up
though, that there is some 'intelligence' going on. BTW-There is a
dog in Germany that scientists have taught to recognize 200 words
(of course we can't compare babies and dogs on speaking words, dogs
don't have the vocal cord structure for that), and to recognize new
words (they have trained it to know what its bone and stick is, and
they put them in a room with a third untaught object, say a chew
toy, and they say "go get the chew toy" and it goes in, and knowing
what the bone and stick is, and that the chew toy is the only
not-them item in the room, it gets it!).
"So, all species are equally precious, and deserve the same
treatment under the law --or lack thereof."
Well, of course I NEVER implied or said this. In fact I explictly
stated that humans deserve MORE moral weight than any other animal
I can think of. I just said that animals deserve SOME moral weight,
since they have, to some lesser degree, the characteristics that
make us morally relevant (intelligence, ability to feel pain, etc).
Heck, I ate a steak and cheese sub yesterday and loved it! I chalk
that up to my moral weakness (I'm married and not supposed to ogle
hot ladies as they walk past too, but no such luck with that one
too) and that I don't think that the mere killing of animals for
food, if done in a humane way after a humane life of some sorts, is
necessarily evil. But the process whereby we get foie gras and veal
are just cruel and morally wrong imo.
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