Michaëlle's blood-thirsty ways

[frandroid]

As a culturally sensitive vegan, I would approve of Michaëlle Jean's seal eating and hunting, if only she wasn't conflating inuit seal hunting with east coast seal hunting... So not the same thing.

Comments

[theoria.livejournal.com]

I'll keep it short:

ou are conflating cause and reaction. Also just because the overall trends are probably negative doesn't mean we should give up on steps to improve animal welfare.

Any superficial analysis of animal welfare legislation policy clearly indicates that animal welfare has not increased in any measurable way nor has it improved the life of any animal in any appreciable way. By its own standards, animal welfare is a failure. Rather than making the lives of animals more pleasant, animal welfare has created the most elaborate and pervasive system of misery and death ever created. Consider the following analogy: sure it is better to just be raped and murdered instead of tortured, raped and murdered - but even under the "rape welfare," you're still being raped and murdered. This is unacceptable.

So what interim strategy is best in order to minimize harm to animals?

This makes no argument on the face of it. Let's again, look at an analogy. Say everyone agrees that rape is wrong. However, a lot of men really like raping women. So, what we all agree to do is ban raping in ten years. In the meantime, vaginal rape and molestation will be acceptable, but anal rape will be prohibited. This makes absolutely no sense and no reasonable person would agree to it. Either you haven't considered your position or you are irrational.

Wikipedia tells me the vaccine against the influenza virus was developed through a study of chicken eggs.

Well aware of that. Your original position however was that of the miracle cure: one experiment could save a bunch of people, but that one experiment would be horrible to the animal. You haven't provided any evidence to support your assertion and only given evidence to support mine.

But really, what you are saying is that no animal suffering is ever justified, and that's what I find remarkable.

No, I'm saying that the intentional and unintentional infliction of direct or indirect suffering upon an non-consenting party, whether that party be a worm, falcon, hippo, or human is unacceptable. As a corollary to this, I am saying that instrumental use of one being for the benefit of another being, regardless of how much suffering will be alleviated for the many on the basis of the few, cannot be justified.

That is, I am rejecting any and all arguments that take an economic form - the very sort of argument you are prone to; viz., "animal testing could be useful," "to make hundreds of rats suffer mild physical discomfort in order to prevent millions of people from dying"

But it is very easy to think of scenarios in which animal testing could be useful.

I certainly cannot.

But I am throwing it out there because I refuse to see things in black and white.

Good for you! And now you are a stooge for evil, death, and misery. Congratulations. (By the way, you must admit then, that in some cases, rape must be justified, that torture must be justified, that genocide must be justified - or, at the very least, its justification must be "open to debate.")

[dubaiwalla.livejournal.com]

I see a lot of shrillness here, and very little by way of a realistic path towards a future where animals are treated better. This might at least make sense if it were a successful strategy, but this is manifestly not the case.

This is unacceptable.
Very well, let's extend your metaphor. The overwhelming majority of people are okay with daily rape and eventual murder, and it is encouraged socially and legally. You have a choice. You can stand on a street corner and scream till your face is blue at people who could care less, in the hopes that they will one day see the light and completely change their lifestyle. Or you could try to get something done in terms of reducing the incidence of rape so that it takes place only once, rather than daily. Sure, the victims will still die violent deaths, but at least they will not have suffered suffer every single day of their lives beforehand. Is this still terrible? Yes. Is it also less overall suffering? Yes.

Incidentally, none of this would 'justify' rape, torture, or genocide; it would mean that less [horrible crime] beats than more [horrible crime], if those are the only two options available.

Your original position however was that of the miracle cure: one experiment could save a bunch of people, but that one experiment would be horrible to the animal.
My statement was that 'research ... has the potential to avert far greater suffering than it causes.' I have given you two examples.

[theoria.livejournal.com]

Incidentally, none of this would 'justify' rape, torture, or genocide; it would mean that less [horrible crime] beats than more [horrible crime]; if those are *the only two options available*.

So much for your claim to see beyond 'black and white.' The question is not animal welfare or no welfare at all. The question is not one of how 'well' do we treat animals when we use them, but whether we should us them at all. You're asking a policy question; I'm asking a moral question.

And by "shrillness" you mean something to the effect of, "Someone disagrees with me. Why can't he respect my opinion? Why can't he see how hard I am trying? Why can't he see how much I care? (But not too much, of course, not enough to lead to any measurable change in the lives of animals. I'll accept that 'animal welfare' really does take the interests of animals into account even if there is no evidence to support that at all.)"

I'll be clear, it is great that you are a vegan, but I think you might benefit from reflecting on why you are a vegan (health? genuine concern? something else?) and what that might mean for the rest of your life (use of animals in research, teaching, entertainment, fashion) and how your life relates to the lives of others. I've engaged in this process of reflection and do so on a daily basis. Consequently, I am quite confident in the veracity of my position. I don't make truth claims lightly and, in this case, I am certain I speak with the force of truth.

[dubaiwalla.livejournal.com]

You're convinced of the morality of your ideas. Fair enough. You say you support the welfare of animals? I believe you. So then it should matter that you get to put your ideas into practice, shouldn't it? Otherwise, like the people you fret are being mollified by minimal animal welfare provisions, your moralizing does little more than make you feel good. (There are also the limited consequences you can bring about by your own personal actions, but in the case of your veganism, I already match you.)

You have so far failed to convince me that my economic arguments are wrong. Let's chalk that up to first principles. But if you can show me my belief system is inferior to yours in terms of securing animal welfare, then I would love to hear how you can do better. We both believe animal welfare has been insufficient, so in theory, the threshold is low. And yes, I absolutely believe that policy enters into this because I see no point in paying lip service to morals and losing sight of the big picture regarding the poor way in which animals are treated. I will do what I consider to be my part because of my set of morals, but I care about consequences. So I would much rather the general population become vegan for health reasons than have it acknowledge a lack morality but continue to eat meat regardless.

Consequences are also why tone is important. No matter how convinced you are of something, self-righteousness beyond a certain point is counterproductive in terms of winning people over to your point of view and getting them to change their thinking and/or behavior. If you could somehow convince someone reading this to go vegan, you will potentially have saved many animals from a miserable existence. If you only end up making the other people here tune out, what purpose has that served?

[theoria.livejournal.com]

You say you support the welfare of animals?

No, I don't. I reject it as an acceptable position. Welfare addresses "treatment" and not "use." I don't accept that one being can legitimately and justifiably be used as means for another.

It is remarkable that you have such a tap on my both my feelings and my actions. For my part, I sit on the board of governors and actively volunteer for a number of organizations, I teach animal law, animal welfare and animal rights in a university, and my research is in the area of 'animal studies.' From what I can tell, my life is completely organized around the betterment of animals. Is yours?

You have so far failed to convince me that my economic arguments are wrong.

That's fine - you are clearly comfortable with the absurd consequences of your position. A position that allows you justify the suffering of one group for the benefit of another! Once that structure is accepted, you've opened the door to all sorts of insanity.

Put another way, I don't accept the basis of the argument; viz., that beings can be legitimately and justifiable used in instrumental purposes by others for the benefit of the others. If you accept that position, then your argument is fine. I don't. It isn't compatible with improving the lives of either humans or animals.