More animal rights stuff. Because it is important.

In response to an online blog firestorm on LiveJournal--here's the original:

It's funny how all the naysaying posts are actually ignoring the main point that Jonah is trying to get across. In fact Mr. Quinn you're enforcing what he started to say: Extremist of any variety are absurd. Here you are becoming insulted by what ever facts are presented and are looking for a fight.

Killing animals leads us to ignore human suffering? Please show me proof of that. Last I looked the media is causing that, not my Big Mac.

(In all reality I find vegetarianism a lame way out. For people who care so much about animal suffering and rights that they only stop eating them, not cutting them out of their lifestyle totally. You're weekend warriors. Vegans get the props...they dont pussy out on supporting what they believe in)

Annnnd my word-age:

Jonah's editorial (#1)
"The people who I find to be the silliest right now - and trust me, it's a long list - are the animal rights activists. Can I just say that first off, the very idea of their position, animal rights, is preposterous.
If animals have rights, which are what these bored and overly politically correct people are fighting for, then could my pets sue me?"

I would say that Jonah does not make is clear enough that he is only attacking the 'extremists.' Certainly he references PETA as being libelous (to steve irwin) and not to be taken seriously (for the rest of us). And his argument is entirely founded in the 'extremist' problem. Yet in this editorial, he never distinguished from the psychos and the 'normal' veg*ns, and here is his most offensive error. The term he uses is "animal rights activists" but he irrefutably connects this term with PETA and the likes of extremism. I, myself, am a vegetarian, and I would consider myself an animal rights activist. I do not participate in picketing, or spray-paint people in fur coats, but I am an activist in a very important way. My eating habits are my activist, they represent my values and beliefs. Not only that, but in selectively NOT participating in industrial farming, I am perpetually voting against this system. Everyday I say "No" to these animal abuses, and I do so conscientiously. The world does not accommodate me. I'm not complaining, but my efforts to find veggie friendly places only helps to reinforce my beliefs and subsequent actions because I am confronted with the "why" of my choices very frequently.

Now in Jonah's second editorial (2/15) I'll grant that he does 'clarify' his angle. He specifies,

"I'm not attacking anyone but the extremists, because most vegetarians thankfully aren't quite as silly as their quirky neighbors."

But the values and actions he is attacking here (unlike the extremist 'terrorism' he cites in the first editorial) are the foundations of the animal rights movement and veg*nism in the first place. That IS offensive. I am a 'mainstream' vegetarian. I am offended. I feel that Jonah probably inserted this disclaimer to placate his friends (myself being one of them! I have no problem with jonah At All. It's just an intellectual argument for me, at least)

He claims that extremest vegetarians (here melded with animal rights activists?) promote themselves as "dignified and altruistic because they are healthier, happier, and guiltless." I find this point of argument to be 1. a blanket statement, 2. unfounded--sources? Direct quotes? Or perhaps a national survey of these people to get a percentage census on their agenda. If these defending sources that I'm requesting do not exist, then you need to rethink the original statements and how one validates them, right?

The difference between a vegetarian purporting that the 'natural order' of man is to progress towards a meat-free diet is preposterous. We have residual canine teeth, yes Jonah. We also have molars, ideal for plant foods. We are an omnivorous species, starting with scavenging marrow from carcases, to developing tools for hunting, to cultivating crops and agriculture.

If we are to believe, however, that humans are the superior beings of the Earth, that we are the most sentient and reasoning, then it is perhaps our responsibility to consider our actions more thoroughly than a wolf would when attacking a doe. We have the ability to be self-reflective, and better yet--self-actualizing! If science tells us that we, as humans, are capable of living a healthy, well-sustained life without meat in our diet (or better yet, no animal products at all), in addition to our knowledge that industrial farming is an enormous source of suffering in the country, for both animals and humans alike, then shouldn't we be able to make conscientious decisions and consume thoughtfully?

And using the economy to defend the meat industry? Especially when not citing government reports, but Beef Industry lobbyist studies, is just poor researching. Change is difficult because people resist it because they think it is difficult. Read that one twice, it makes sense...Anyway, how about a witty suggestion for how we may recover from the economic hit of the fall of the meat industry: give those people jobs in the green revolution industries! Let's invest more in green energy, cars, wind-power, solar-power. There are jobs of every level in those fields.

And I especially felt it unfounded to compare the Inuit lifestyle and dietary habits to our own. It's absurd to make this connection because most indigenous people did/do eat meat, but they hunt, and hunting is inherently different from the industrial farming we encounter every day in the US. 1. The animal most likely was able to have lived a normal/natural life until killed. 2. In indigenous societies, often there is a sense of reverence and respect for the creature: an understanding that one life is lost to give life to another. I'm not saying we should be new-age hippies and develop a religion around this, but it's the absence of this respect that allows the violence of factory farming to occur. In addition, in the indigenous world, the whole animal is used purposely. Skin becomes clothing or blankets or shelter, bones can be used for tools, weapons, or jewelry, and everything else can be eaten. I suppose industrial farming has its own unique form of this recycling, but it involves feeding dead animals to their compatriots. And animals eating each other (especially the same species) is a timebomb. Think about the causes of the animal's death, and then consider how reasonable it is to feed that creature to others.

And finally (i hope), I'd like to address the reference to the claim that war is a condition of a meat eating society, and that vegetarianism would magically create peace. In my re-reading of each editorial and each response letter, I have not come across any direct statement that meat-eating=war. This claim was never made. The Beacon online has a comment from Professor David Johnson quoting Leo Tolstoy, "So long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields." Yet neither Mr. Quinn nor Mr. Bourgeois specifically argue this themselves.

In the Livejournal discourse, you'll see that Quinn mentioned this:

"Much of this corn is grown with synthetic fertilizer and pesticides and is produced in a petroleum-intensive manner, with some estimates claiming that every bushel of corn produced uses half a gallon of petroleum. This reliance on petroleum for cattle feed makes all government actions to gain control of petroleum, for instance the war in Iraq, indirect (admittedly very indirect) subsidies to industrial agriculture." He is merely responding to Jonah's editorial, the one that uses the US economy to defend itself, by limiting his letter to points refuted in the editorial. It isn't even the main focus of his point.

Also, there is a correlation between being insensitive to animal suffering and being insensitive to human suffering. I don't believe "ignoring" is a proper word for this perspective. I'll use an accessible example for this, citing Quinn's previous point: "I agree, animals don't have the same rights. But it's still wrong to kick a dog." Animal cruelty, from children, is seen as a warning sign, through the MacDonald Triad. Animal Cruelty is often an indicator of violent, antisocial behavior. Studies have also shown that these children are statistically more likely to grow to be violent criminals. So here we find an interesting connection between animal abuse and human abuse. Granted there are often psychological problems with the actors, but this is small-scale stuff. If we widen our lens to see the suffering inflicted on millions of animals (and people) every day, suffering that is institutionalized, and don't do anything about it (and we don't all have the excuse of psychological derangement) then what kinds of people are we?



-----------------


also, aside from these words, I'd like to just say how thankful I am for Ryan's efforts in this debate. I feel like I personally do not have the skills in logic/ethics/philosophy, nor the time, to really argue each of these editorials fully. He's fighting the good fight, indeed.

and how about a picture of a kitten romping in a field, to cleanse our mental palates for the day?