Being a copy-editor for the Beacon means that I often have the opporunity to read letters to the editor, as well as new editorials, before most everyone else. A great deal of buzz resulted from an editorial two issues ago about animal rights, and how "dumb" activists that support it, are.
The following week there were two biting letters to the editor protesting the editorial..and this week's issue will feature, it seems, a letter to the editor defending the original editorial against the two susequent protest letters.
The argument is against censorship over the opinions of the editorialist. I can understand that position, of course, but freedom of speach does not, or at least should not, cover name-calling. The editorial was juvenile in that respect, and this new letter fails to address that, in favor of attacking the administration, and the school, for censorship by printing the two protest letters.
Censorship is, to my mind, wrong. But so is making brash claims and attacks against something that has not been researched. How else can anyone form an intelligent argument without any facts? That is, I believe, the real reason behind the protest letters.
Why can't we all get along? No, never mind. I know why we can't. Humanity is stubborn, and we all feel that we are right in whatever it is we believe. How else can war be explained. There have been wars about land, about religion, about greed and about women named Hellen (if such myths can be believed). There just seems to need to be an excuse, and poof, there's a war.
The trouble is, there is no "winning" most wars. The death toll is always too high on both sides, or all sides, of the conflict for there to be any true winner. Not unless the "winner" just happens to be the one that gets the flag in the end. I don't agree, frankly. War is a tragedy, and never produces a triumph. It also seems to be, sadly, an aspect of human nature that we seem unable to avoid.
At this point, all I can think is that maybe vegetarians are right- I'm willing to gamble. What have I got to lose? If we stop killing animals, perhaps we'll stop killing eachother, too. I'd much rather kill a radish than a person.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
animal abuse, and the idiocy of the Court
Read this article, and tell me if you think this man really oughta be placed in a position to interact with animals again, during his probation!
Puppies' killer sentenced to prison, work with animals
The man killed at least four puppies and buried them, authorities say.
By COLLEEN JENKINS
Published February 13, 2007
TAMPA - First he killed Romeo.
Then Sadie and Little Wiggles.
Then a pit bull named Angel.
Authorities say Benjamin M. Boatwright killed at least four puppies in two years and buried them outside his home in northeastern Hillsborough County.
An animal control officer said it was the most heinous animal abuse he had ever seen.
Circuit Judge Daniel Sleet decided Monday that it was serious enough to warrant prison time. He sentenced Boatwright, 25, to 2 1/2 years in prison and five years of probation. As part of his probation, Boatwright must perform 250 hours of community service at the Humane Society.
"You're going to take care of those animals that you mistreated," Sleet said.
Boatwright's landlord reported him for suspicious behavior, prosecutor Kristen Over said.
When an officer asked what happened to Romeo, Boatwright said he shot the dog in the head after it bit Sally Dykes, his live-in girlfriend. The dog didn't die immediately, he told the officer, so he kicked it in the head.
Later, Boatwright said Romeo died after being hit by a car.
The officer found Sadie's remains in a backyard grave. A plastic bag was tied around the German shepherd's skull, and tests showed two pellets inside, Over said.
Little Wiggles whined too much, Boatwright said. So he choked the dog to death. Angel pooped inside Boatwright's mobile home. He kicked the puppy into a cabinet, fatally fracturing its skull.
After pleading guilty last month to three counts of animal cruelty, Boatwright said he was high on drugs when he killed Sadie and Angel.
Colleen Jenkins can be reached at 813 226-3337
Puppies' killer sentenced to prison, work with animals
The man killed at least four puppies and buried them, authorities say.
By COLLEEN JENKINS
Published February 13, 2007
TAMPA - First he killed Romeo.
Then Sadie and Little Wiggles.
Then a pit bull named Angel.
Authorities say Benjamin M. Boatwright killed at least four puppies in two years and buried them outside his home in northeastern Hillsborough County.
An animal control officer said it was the most heinous animal abuse he had ever seen.
Circuit Judge Daniel Sleet decided Monday that it was serious enough to warrant prison time. He sentenced Boatwright, 25, to 2 1/2 years in prison and five years of probation. As part of his probation, Boatwright must perform 250 hours of community service at the Humane Society.
"You're going to take care of those animals that you mistreated," Sleet said.
Boatwright's landlord reported him for suspicious behavior, prosecutor Kristen Over said.
When an officer asked what happened to Romeo, Boatwright said he shot the dog in the head after it bit Sally Dykes, his live-in girlfriend. The dog didn't die immediately, he told the officer, so he kicked it in the head.
Later, Boatwright said Romeo died after being hit by a car.
The officer found Sadie's remains in a backyard grave. A plastic bag was tied around the German shepherd's skull, and tests showed two pellets inside, Over said.
Little Wiggles whined too much, Boatwright said. So he choked the dog to death. Angel pooped inside Boatwright's mobile home. He kicked the puppy into a cabinet, fatally fracturing its skull.
After pleading guilty last month to three counts of animal cruelty, Boatwright said he was high on drugs when he killed Sadie and Angel.
Colleen Jenkins can be reached at 813 226-3337
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
A worrisome editorialistic viewpoint, and animal abuse on a general basis
In the Beacon editorial on Feb. 8, the editor ranted for quite awhile on the topic of animal rights. I bring this up only because of the fact that the author seemed to have absolutely no respect for animal rights, and went sofar as to ridicule those that advocate such things as animal welfare.
The editorial made me angry, and, being a copy-editor for the paper, I know that I'm not the only one. There will be two letters to the editor arguing against the editorial. Both of them are well-written, and protest the way that the editor's main argument against animal rights is simply ridiculous.
The main argument seems to be that advocating animal rights indicates the desire to see non-human animals gain the same legal, moral and social rights as humans. The editorial ridicules the idea of a dog suing its owner, for instance.
It also likens the actions of animal rights activists to the sorts of activists that burn down research labs and terrorize scientists for animal experimentation. Obviously the greater portion of non-human animal rights activists are not militant. '
I was not surprised that the editorial did not cite any sort of research on the topic of the rant, nor was there any indication of any. PETA and other organizations are not trying to gain non-human animals the same set of rights that we ourselves enjoy. Legal representation in court for non-human animals is, of course, rather silly. Advocating in court for animal welfare, however, is not.
Animal abuse cases are beginning to gain more attention thanks to various television shows on Animal Planet channel, among other venues, but it has a long way to go before every state takes animal abuse seriously. I read an article a few years ago about a stray cat that had had its fur burned off as a malicious prank. Dubbed Pheonix, the cat made a full recovery, and was adopted by the two people who found him, suffering and abandoned, on a roadside in Springfield, MA.
To my knowledge no one has been prosecuted for hurting Pheonix. It's a disheartening thought.
The editorial made me angry, and, being a copy-editor for the paper, I know that I'm not the only one. There will be two letters to the editor arguing against the editorial. Both of them are well-written, and protest the way that the editor's main argument against animal rights is simply ridiculous.
The main argument seems to be that advocating animal rights indicates the desire to see non-human animals gain the same legal, moral and social rights as humans. The editorial ridicules the idea of a dog suing its owner, for instance.
It also likens the actions of animal rights activists to the sorts of activists that burn down research labs and terrorize scientists for animal experimentation. Obviously the greater portion of non-human animal rights activists are not militant. '
I was not surprised that the editorial did not cite any sort of research on the topic of the rant, nor was there any indication of any. PETA and other organizations are not trying to gain non-human animals the same set of rights that we ourselves enjoy. Legal representation in court for non-human animals is, of course, rather silly. Advocating in court for animal welfare, however, is not.
Animal abuse cases are beginning to gain more attention thanks to various television shows on Animal Planet channel, among other venues, but it has a long way to go before every state takes animal abuse seriously. I read an article a few years ago about a stray cat that had had its fur burned off as a malicious prank. Dubbed Pheonix, the cat made a full recovery, and was adopted by the two people who found him, suffering and abandoned, on a roadside in Springfield, MA.
To my knowledge no one has been prosecuted for hurting Pheonix. It's a disheartening thought.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
A conversation
With permission from a friend, I'm posting up a discussion I had with her about the A&E class
Animals & Ethics is the class title
it's all about the evolution of morality, and whether or not animals can be moral creatures, or if its merely humanity that has that ability
ghost: wow
ghost: a bit mind-blowing
Yes. but the reading sometimes makes my brain want to explode.
it has so very many philosophy jargon and such that I'm constantly flipping through dictionaries
ghost: well morality is an odd word, hard to define, is it an agreement between two
ghost: as in morals about not killing eachother so a community can exist
ghost: kinda hard to live side by side if we are always injuring eachother in different ways
It's all of it. sociality as a moral construct, the argument for vegetarianism..
ghost: ahh, but i have eye teeth that are sharp
ghost: though i do adore animals
ghost: and eat very few
Yes, humans are omnivorous by physiology. That is one of the arguments against vegetarianism
ghost: no bunnies
But that's where morals come in. If it's wrong to kill, is it wrong to kill animals? or just SOME animals?
ghost:we kiss bunnies
Which ones? how can you choose? Is one more valuable than another because it's cute? That's the stuff this class discusses
ghost: ahh, i think its the domestic thing
ghost: livestock, and farms
ghost: um, is it wrong to kill animals? Animals kill animals, but being humane in the killing, that is a human issue.
ghost: this is great stuff ally
What about whales and fish and wolves and wild horses. birds?
It's not just about killing for consumption:
Animal testing for human products, circuses, zoos
ghost: definitely.
Why is it ok to boil a live lobster, but not something else?
ghost: does make the head spin
ghost: my sister is an ultra vegan
ghost:I know where her thoughts lay
ghost: meat = murder
ghost: I'm not as hard on that
ghost: but humane killing, is an issue
I eat meat, but now i'm developing a guilt complex from this class, haha.
It's like..I want to apologize every time I have chicken
ghost: me too actually
ghost: cause
oh, and things like puppy and exotic animal mills and such are also discussed in this class. breeding animals just for aesthetic value in fur farms and exotics black market sales.
The whole phenom of the white tiger, for instance..inbreeding. Most that are born are so disabled or disfigured that no circus will show them, and they are either killed or used for the fur trade. It's sad. I've done research.
ghost: see, thats why I'd end up like Rena (my sister)
ghost: i do eat cheese 24/7
You really do. I've noticed. Ah, but cheese comes from milk which comes from cows. Is it morally right to steal from cows?
ghost: yes it is, or you might ask, killing plants for salad, or microbes in water, is it time for me to die than hmm, what is left ? see
Exactly. almost everything a person does kills something. It's a tricky issue
ghost: yes
Even Vegans.
ghost:yes
They kill stuff all the time by breathing.
ghost: brown rice kills the rice plant.
ghost: and tofu kills the soy plant
ghost: so back to
ghost: raising livestock for food
Yeah.
Animals & Ethics is the class title
it's all about the evolution of morality, and whether or not animals can be moral creatures, or if its merely humanity that has that ability
ghost: wow
ghost: a bit mind-blowing
Yes. but the reading sometimes makes my brain want to explode.
it has so very many philosophy jargon and such that I'm constantly flipping through dictionaries
ghost: well morality is an odd word, hard to define, is it an agreement between two
ghost: as in morals about not killing eachother so a community can exist
ghost: kinda hard to live side by side if we are always injuring eachother in different ways
It's all of it. sociality as a moral construct, the argument for vegetarianism..
ghost: ahh, but i have eye teeth that are sharp
ghost: though i do adore animals
ghost: and eat very few
Yes, humans are omnivorous by physiology. That is one of the arguments against vegetarianism
ghost: no bunnies
But that's where morals come in. If it's wrong to kill, is it wrong to kill animals? or just SOME animals?
ghost:we kiss bunnies
Which ones? how can you choose? Is one more valuable than another because it's cute? That's the stuff this class discusses
ghost: ahh, i think its the domestic thing
ghost: livestock, and farms
ghost: um, is it wrong to kill animals? Animals kill animals, but being humane in the killing, that is a human issue.
ghost: this is great stuff ally
What about whales and fish and wolves and wild horses. birds?
It's not just about killing for consumption:
Animal testing for human products, circuses, zoos
ghost: definitely.
Why is it ok to boil a live lobster, but not something else?
ghost: does make the head spin
ghost: my sister is an ultra vegan
ghost:I know where her thoughts lay
ghost: meat = murder
ghost: I'm not as hard on that
ghost: but humane killing, is an issue
I eat meat, but now i'm developing a guilt complex from this class, haha.
It's like..I want to apologize every time I have chicken
ghost: me too actually
ghost: cause
oh, and things like puppy and exotic animal mills and such are also discussed in this class. breeding animals just for aesthetic value in fur farms and exotics black market sales.
The whole phenom of the white tiger, for instance..inbreeding. Most that are born are so disabled or disfigured that no circus will show them, and they are either killed or used for the fur trade. It's sad. I've done research.
ghost: see, thats why I'd end up like Rena (my sister)
ghost: i do eat cheese 24/7
You really do. I've noticed. Ah, but cheese comes from milk which comes from cows. Is it morally right to steal from cows?
ghost: yes it is, or you might ask, killing plants for salad, or microbes in water, is it time for me to die than hmm, what is left ? see
Exactly. almost everything a person does kills something. It's a tricky issue
ghost: yes
Even Vegans.
ghost:yes
They kill stuff all the time by breathing.
ghost: brown rice kills the rice plant.
ghost: and tofu kills the soy plant
ghost: so back to
ghost: raising livestock for food
Yeah.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
