Discussion Main / AnimalWrongsGroup

It's a moot point for this particular wiki, seeing as real-life examples are blocked in this particular article.

Holy CRAP that's bad. Taking it to Image Pickin

That might be a good idea, though the "no Real Life examples" blurb should probably call attention to it. Something like, "In Real Life, there's three primary flavors of animal activism you should know about; see the Analysis tab for more. Beyond that, No Real Life Examples Please."

Ingrid Newkirk (PETA founder) has been quoted describing pet ownership as "an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation", but a) the provenance of the quote is a bit iffy (the searches on Google tend to pop up a lot of anti-PETA sites) and b) even if it's true, Newkirk's approach to animal rights is a bit... special.

Go back to ED.

I disagree. The explanation between the difference in philosophies between animal welfare, animal rights, and animal liberation isn't something well known (as evidenced by lemler's claims above) and deserves some attention.

It's pretty sad that there even needs to be such a long disclaimer to prevent page defacement by drama queens who believe things that any person that has actually lived among wild animals would know to be dead wrong (for both the activists and the animals they think they're protecting). Animals simply don't process information the way humans do. When a human feeds a wild animal, the animal doesn't think, "Humans are nice!" Instead, the animal thinks, "Humans are edible!" and eventually becomes trained to act accordingly. Even herbivores like deer will eventually start attacking humans if they are fed enough to overcome their fear of predation.

It still makes the main description too long for easy reading is the thing. I've moved it to a Real Life section at the top of the example list that should hopefully help dissuade anyone from trying to add their own Truth in Television examples.

@216.226.180.3: Surely, though, that little fact doesn't justify factory farming, vivisection, animals in entertainment, etc., does it?

@Luna87 Begging the Question there, much?

216.226.180.3

...the question is, whether ever-present Drama Queens don't know what any PETA member (each of these is a freakin' Tarzan who "lived among wild animals" in jungles, that's why they are renowned for confronting big nasty leather-wearing bikers) knows or what anyone remotely sane understands?

(removed, unrelated to topic)

The explanation of the differences between the types of groups isn't arguments. Not all animal welfare/rights/liberation groups are equally extreme. I did cut out the links and a lot of the justification/attacks and try to make it more informational and less biased.

The explanations between the different types of groups may not be intended as arguments, but that doesn't mean they can't be inaccurate, or biased.

The idea that all self-proclaimed "animal rights" groups believe that the concept of pets should be outlawed, because owning a pet is comparable to slavery (ie, a person owning another person), is just flat-out inaccurate. There may be some self-proclaimed animal rights groups that believe this. There are many that don't. One can believe that animals should have some rights (like the right not to be tortured or subjected to inhumane treatment, the right to appropriate amounts of food and water and space, etc.) without believing that there should be no legal distinction between people and animals.

I'd really like to know where it says that part of the definition of "animal rights" is the belief that having a pet is no different than having a slave.

That's my argument, this is just an illustration for anyone who's interested: One of the biggest debates within groups that care about animals is whether it should be legal to sue veteranarians for malpractice. (As of now in the U.S., even if a veterarian is grossly, grossly negligent to your pet, you can only sue for the market value of the pet. Which means if your dog was a mutt, you're screwed.) The groups that support the possibility of suing vets for malpractice are, essentially, arguing that animals should have some recognition under the law beyond being the property of their owners. (You can't sue a mechanic for malpractice.) Thus, these groups support animal rights. Whereas some animal welfare groups don't want to see this change happen - usually they argue that if vets need malpractice insurance, their fees will go up, and not everyone will be able to afford to get care for their sick pets. That's one description of the way that an "animal welfare" viewpoint would conflict with an "animal rights" viewpoint. That's pretty different from, "if you believe in animal rights, you believe pets are the equivalent of slaves," isn't it?

"I'd really like to know where it says that part of the definition of "animal rights" is the belief that having a pet is no different than having a slave. "

It was there originally as a link to Wikipedia on Animal Rights. Madrugada cut it out as part of his attempt to make the article "more informational" and "less biased." (Ironic, don't you think?)

You can read the article here. I'll copy some of the highlights for you:

"Advocates approach the issue from different philosophical positions, but agree that animals should be viewed as non-human persons and members of the moral community, and should not be used as food, clothing, research subjects, or entertainment. They argue that human beings should stop seeing other sentient beings as property—not even as property to be treated kindly."

"Critics argue that animals are unable to enter into a social contract or make moral choices, and for that reason cannot be regarded as possessors of rights, a position summed up by the philosopher Roger Scruton, who writes that only humans have duties and therefore only humans have rights. A parallel argument is that there is nothing inherently wrong with using animals as resources so long there is no unnecessary suffering, a view known as the animal welfare position."

"That's one description of the way that an "animal welfare" viewpoint would conflict with an "animal rights" viewpoint. That's pretty different from, "if you believe in animal rights, you believe pets are the equivalent of slaves," isn't it? "

If people are going to accuse the description of the three different schools of animal welfare/rights as "inaccurate" because someone removed the links describing various movements' philosophies, then I may well just restore those links.