Monthly Archive for December, 2008

The breeders’ paradox

Published
by
Alex
on December 31, 2008
in Thinking
. 2 Comments

An equation –

If there is one spot open in a household to be filled with an animal — a “pet” –, there are two possible outcomes: that space can be filled with an animal who is currently in existence, or that spot can be filled with a non-existent animal that will be brought into existence for the specific end of filling that spot.

Given that animals are currently in existence, the latter option, if selected, by bringing another being into existence, will necessarily end in a homeless animal. If the former option is selected, this outcome will not come to pass given that the non-existent animal isn’t brought into existence in the first place. 

Let’s assume, then, that the breeders’ claim that they “Do what they do for the sake of the breed” is true. Say an individual breeds poodles for profit. Given the realities of our society (just Google search “adopt poodles”) there are literally thousands upon thousands of “pure bred” poodles, of all ages, currently in existence awaiting homes. 
Back to our equation. Given this reality, for those who force female poodles to procreate for human profit, their efforts to bring these non-existent poodles into existence will necessarily force existing poodles out of these empty spots.
What does “…for the love of the breed” mean then? Do they love the individual living, feeling animals who make-up the breed itself, or some abstract concept — “the poodle”? 
If it is the former, it stands to reason that breeders, if they are to be consistent in their claims about “loving the breed,” ought to spend their time securing homes for these thousands of existing poodles — whom they love, of course –, and then, once all these animals have safe and secure lives, they can then move onto other ventures. 
However, if it is the latter, and the individual poodles really aren’t of any real concern to these breeders-for-profit, then the concept — as we humans have defined it — has all the importance. Therefore, correcting any “flaws,” again, as we humans understand them, in the breed becomes the only end. Breeding, then, is the means to this end. But remember the equation: individual poodles will, necessarily — it is unavoidable –, be forced into exile, suffering, and death. (Unless we can find a way to fund those many, many rescue organizations who step in to aid these homeless poodles — whom are “loved” by breeders.) 
I would label this a “paradox” because the premise — “I don’t force animals to have sex for my profit (alone), I do it because I love the breed itself” — logically leads to a conclusion that would imply the wrongness of breeding itself. The premise, it would seem, implies the contradiction.          
How can the breeder resolve to avoid this contradiction? 
It can be argued that those who purchase animals from a breeder would not adopt or rescue a poodle anyways. Therefore, that “open spot” equation doesn’t work because it wouldn’t be filled by any animal besides the one purchased from a breeder. But that response doesn’t really follow does it. Without the actions of a breeder — thus bringing a non-existent poodle into this world –, this person who won’t adopt or rescue would not really have an open spot at all. Therefore, in effect, an open spot is created because the breeder is there to accommodate. Now, this raises the “pre-existence problem” (which really isn’t that big of a problem), however, it is a non-issue as far as this post is concerned. 
Actually, however, the equation does change. Again! Given the realities of our society, we know that some poodles bred specifically for this segment of our population will either not be purchased and end up somewhere else (Perhaps a rescue org because of the actions of these breeders who “love” poodles?), or they will be purchased and discarded at some point throughout their lives. As such, the equation actually gets worse: more homeless poodles. 
I cannot think of any other responses available besides honesty from the breeder: “I do it for the profit of the thing” — or euphemistically, “It’s tradition…..”   
Will be crossposted @ Vegan Soapbox

Ad hominem, i.e., pretend argument

Published
by
Alex
on December 27, 2008
in Random
. 2 Comments

Thanks go out to Vegan Soapbox

It’s called an ad hominem.

Greg Gutfeld:

So in Bangor, Maine last week, two extremely hot girls in tiny yellow bikinis protested outside a KFC in the snow. Their names were Ashley and Krissy and, according to PETA, they’re members of the group.

Right.

I guarantee that if you stop by any PETA meeting, you’d be crap out of luck finding anyone remotely like Ashley or Krissy. With the exception of Pam Anderson — who, by the by, is not so much aging as she is rusting — most animal rights activists aren’t hot… or particularly social.

Fact is, their connection to animals is usually based on their alienation from humans.

PETA apparently was protesting KFC because — get this — when you fry chicken, it’s not good for the chickens. But the press eats this stuff up because they love anything involving half-naked chicks. And so do I.

But there’s a strategy behind these stunts. PETA hopes that the press overlooks the corrupt bedrock of animal rights: That a human is worth no more than a rat — even a hot one.

Which is why PETA would gladly risk a bimbo getting pneumonia for a byline. But maybe they think that’s the only way to get average guys involved in animal rights.

They’re half right. Men will always enjoy looking at a hot chick in bikini, but it’s not the stomach that’s making that decision — which is why there’s always free wings at strip clubs.

And if you disagree with it, then you sir are worse than Hitler.

Definitionally, replying to an argument or a factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim, is a fallacy.  

The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

In an attempt to clarify our position, I contacted Mr. Gutfeld directly with the following email.

Mr. Gutfield,

In response to “PETA Stunts Mask Corrupt Bedrock of Animal Rights,” I wanted to correct one of your central premises: “PETA hopes that the press overlooks the corrupt bedrock of animal rights: That a human is worth no more than a rat…” That is inaccurate.

The philosophy of animal rights premises that in the capacity to suffer, all sentient beings are equal. From this premise, we derive the ethical principle of “equal consideration” as interests — in not suffering, e.g.– are intrinsically connected to the ethical concept of equality. However, this does not imply — and I’m certain you know this — “equal treatment.”

Nonhuman animals and human animals are not “equal,” in some descriptive manner; that’s foolish. As it would be if you argued that all humans are “equal” in this manner. We are making a prescriptive, ethical, statement: All sentient beings have the capacity to suffer, therefore, our refusal to consider the suffering of all animals, human and nonhuman alike, amounts to a kind of prejudice. A prejudice that rests on a foundation of biologism, which is logically parallel to racism and sexism. If you disagree with this then please articulate a defense. However, to assume things about our position and then argue from that assumption is not only dishonest but it’s just bad reasoning.

All animals are equal…in the capacity to suffer. Certain practices, then, follow. However, because humans have different capacities than a rat, for example, such as an interest in the future, a human is in fact “worth” (in interests) more than a rat.

Please correct your baseless accusation for honesty’s sake.

Best,

Alex Melonas

Many people intuit that Fox News (Mr. Gutfeld’s employer) is a corrupt organization. Therefore, poor journalism of this kind is to be expected. However, when someone articulates a position that is so clearly baseless, it is important for the more honest amongst us to lend them a helping hand. And so I did.

(Did you notice the inherent sexism in Mr. Gutfeld’s article? His use of the word “bimbo” is telling; therefore, my appeal to reason – i.e., biologisms such as sexism aren’t ethically justifiable — may not find a home in his conscience.)  

I could, of course, play along and nail Mr. Gutfeld with an ad hominem of my own, however, I like to prevail with facts and good reasoning – call me crazy.   

“Puppy mills”: The reality & a prescription

Published
by
Alex
on December 23, 2008
in Random
. 3 Comments

Thanks go out to Vegan Soapbox and PETA

To the “reputable breeder” crowd:

“But this is the ‘exception’…” goes the reply. And yet example after example is released for the public to see. When, then, does the “exception” become the rule?

Do not buy animals. Adopt, rescue, or otherwise help them. However, do not purchase. This is a difficult prescription given that companion animals exist and require (and are owed) our assistance and “pet stores” house some of these individuals. But our purchases necessarily perpetuate the industry. Educate, publicly picket, use legal mechanisms, open rescues: these are effective means. The animals will be cared for, however, do not be the reason to force breed another exploited animal for human profit.

One reaction to Biden’s choice

Published
by
Alex
on December 16, 2008
in Thinking
. 0 Comments

I’m writing angry. The news of Joe Biden’s purchase of a puppy from a breeder has been commented on by some within the animal rights movement. Here, here, and here for example. The mainstream media has also given this story some press.

Now to my rage. One such program in the M.S.M. world teased with a clip surrounding Biden’s decision and the reaction, primarily from PETA, that followed. I made the only reasonable assumption: a stark discussion about the issue would follow. I was wrong. The story lasted thirty seconds and was essentially a mockery of our challenge, and the evidence that supports it. The message was not “Biden buys one, gets one killed”: here’s why this is true and why it’s not ethical. But: “Why did he get a german shepard? Pugs are cuter.”

The possibility for adding some public pseudo-merit (we of course win on the substance) to this discourse is intimately connected with the decisions made by the M.S.M. The mockery is clearly strategic, not substantive, but it does have a net negative effect on the movement to make our ethics consistent.

Biden made the wrong choice, as an ethical matter. This is objectively true if we really think suffering is a bad thing. However, if this challenge of ours is framed as “a joke,” or with statements such as “It just is…,” and “common sense tells us….,” the impact of the message is deflected. This is a tactic; the language is used purposefully. It’s at the same time a reflection of our prejudice and an attempt to fortify it. In our speciesist world, we are welcome consumers of these manufactured arguments. (This goes to prove my constant claim that the political message goes both ways: H.S.U.S. presents a challenge to speciesism, while childrens’ books and McDonald’s commercials, for example, present a counter message.) 

From Animal Person:

“Here’s why this matters, at least to me. I’m not asking
the guy to stop eating and wearing animals. Okay, that’s not true;
that’s my nefarious goal. Look, everyone’s watching Biden’s every move
and he knows that. His choice tells me that he can’t see why saving a
life and giving an animal a chance is more preferable than creating one
to suit his needs.

And that scares me.”

That is but one legitimate point that ought to be debated.

Here’s the “why” (or one of them). From Earthlings: Pets

 

Will be crossposted @ Vegan Soapbox

Compassion

Published
by
Alex
on December 15, 2008
in Random
. 4 Comments

Thanks go out to Vegan Soapbox