It's been a long semester in some respects, but it has perhaps been my most worthwhile during my four years at the College. I wont say there weren't some lowpoints, but I have a positive outlook about my experience both in this class and at MCLA in general.
I'll be sad to leave this place, but I'm keeping my Animal Ethics Reader and Silliman's book, and likely this blog, as well, since it helps me sort out my thoughts, and I've always been interested in animal welfare.
The last class period, when we presented our book reviews, was surprisingly lengthy, despite the fact that we each had only a page to summarize. I was happy about that, if not for the lack of attendance. Did all those people really withdraw?? Wow. I think they should have stuck with the class because we ended up learning a lot. I'm glad I took this course, and I'll take away a lot from it when I graduate on the 12th.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Friday, April 27, 2007
Rights
I read an article today from Animal Experimentation: The Moral Issues and it bothered me.
In the section of the book on Supporting Animal Experimentation, one article's entire basis for believing vivisection to be justified hinges on semantics.
In Carl Cohen's "For the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research", the writer spends a great deal of time arguing that the animal rights view is wrong because animals, being nonhuman, do not have rights simply because rights are something that only humans have. He also says that while humans have an obligation to treat nonhuman animals decently, the nonhuman animals themselves do not even have a "right to life" on their own part. If this is the typical supportive stance for animal experimentation, it makes me wonder why it still exists in the first place. Semantics are not a strong enough argument for me, and I hope, not for many others, either.
In the section of the book on Supporting Animal Experimentation, one article's entire basis for believing vivisection to be justified hinges on semantics.
In Carl Cohen's "For the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research", the writer spends a great deal of time arguing that the animal rights view is wrong because animals, being nonhuman, do not have rights simply because rights are something that only humans have. He also says that while humans have an obligation to treat nonhuman animals decently, the nonhuman animals themselves do not even have a "right to life" on their own part. If this is the typical supportive stance for animal experimentation, it makes me wonder why it still exists in the first place. Semantics are not a strong enough argument for me, and I hope, not for many others, either.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Hunting
Hunting..I've never cared for the idea, and don't think that just because we are "predatory omnivores" that it is our right as human beings to shoot and maim wild animals for the sake of sportsmanship. It's one thing if the hunting is for food purposes, but quite another when the whole point of it is for entertainment's sake and collecting trophies (and who the heck was the first person to think that mounting heads on walls was classy?).
Obviously Canned hunting is worse than the more traditional methods, but I've already ranted about that in an earlier post, so I wont get into it again. I will say that having seen clips of how hunters often use their dogs to help them kill is disturbing. It's no wonder there are accidental attacks from domesticated dogs, if the animals themselves are being taught contradictions. "It's okay to kill this, Fido, but not that. You can be as brutal as you want to this kind of thing, but if you even act aggressive towards that one, I'm afraid we'll have to put you down like a savage beast." What kind of logic is that???
Obviously Canned hunting is worse than the more traditional methods, but I've already ranted about that in an earlier post, so I wont get into it again. I will say that having seen clips of how hunters often use their dogs to help them kill is disturbing. It's no wonder there are accidental attacks from domesticated dogs, if the animals themselves are being taught contradictions. "It's okay to kill this, Fido, but not that. You can be as brutal as you want to this kind of thing, but if you even act aggressive towards that one, I'm afraid we'll have to put you down like a savage beast." What kind of logic is that???
Monday, April 23, 2007
Children of Men
In another class, I'm studying the novel "Children of Men" by PD James, and it tells the story of the end of humanity, ultimately, due to infertility, and the way that humanity envies the "lesser" species of animal for their continued abilities to reproduce.
It addresses hopelessness (of which even now our modern society feels a great deal of, for a variety of reasons) and even more prominently, hostility and prejudice against other groups.
The film version (starring Clive Owen and Julianne Moore, 2006) accurately visualizes some of the scenes in the novel where entire minority groups are treated almost like nonhuman animals are, today in some cases. They are rounded up, deprived of even human status and the belief in their basic intelligence.
This of course brings to mind the concentration camps of the Nazi era. The story is set in England, and any person that is not a native of the country has been dehumanized to the point where any sign of protest on their part for their treatment may very well result in cold-blooded execution because when deprived of human status, they are no better than wild animals, and given less importance even than cows because these immigrants and refugees are not even useful to the rest of humanity either in life or death.
Terrorism is on the rise, with militant groups springing up from even the most unlikely places. Officially, the last child born was, as of the start of the novel, 25 years before, and now that "youngest person alive" has now been killed in a pointless bar brawl.
The main focus of the story revolves around a philosophy professor, actually (at least in the book) who is, partly by chance drawn into a scenerio where he alone is responsible for protecting and getting to safety an inexplicably pregnant African woman. The fear is that the child will be killed for the spiteful sake of proving that only white humans are human at all, and having any children be born to the dehumanized section of the species would be an unacceptable truth.
"Children of Men" is a hard novel to read, with its ugly view of racism
and paranoia. I bring it up in my phlog solely for its parallels with the class discussions on how nonhuman animals are often reduced to merely their value in regards to how we can use them, and if they have no use for us, they cease having value at all, like the non-caucasians in the novel.
The scariest part is, this sort of scenerio is not entirely out of the realm of eventual possibility, for whatever biological reason.
It addresses hopelessness (of which even now our modern society feels a great deal of, for a variety of reasons) and even more prominently, hostility and prejudice against other groups.
The film version (starring Clive Owen and Julianne Moore, 2006) accurately visualizes some of the scenes in the novel where entire minority groups are treated almost like nonhuman animals are, today in some cases. They are rounded up, deprived of even human status and the belief in their basic intelligence.
This of course brings to mind the concentration camps of the Nazi era. The story is set in England, and any person that is not a native of the country has been dehumanized to the point where any sign of protest on their part for their treatment may very well result in cold-blooded execution because when deprived of human status, they are no better than wild animals, and given less importance even than cows because these immigrants and refugees are not even useful to the rest of humanity either in life or death.
Terrorism is on the rise, with militant groups springing up from even the most unlikely places. Officially, the last child born was, as of the start of the novel, 25 years before, and now that "youngest person alive" has now been killed in a pointless bar brawl.
The main focus of the story revolves around a philosophy professor, actually (at least in the book) who is, partly by chance drawn into a scenerio where he alone is responsible for protecting and getting to safety an inexplicably pregnant African woman. The fear is that the child will be killed for the spiteful sake of proving that only white humans are human at all, and having any children be born to the dehumanized section of the species would be an unacceptable truth.
"Children of Men" is a hard novel to read, with its ugly view of racism
and paranoia. I bring it up in my phlog solely for its parallels with the class discussions on how nonhuman animals are often reduced to merely their value in regards to how we can use them, and if they have no use for us, they cease having value at all, like the non-caucasians in the novel.
The scariest part is, this sort of scenerio is not entirely out of the realm of eventual possibility, for whatever biological reason.
Silliman & Sudan
Today, a great albeit limited class discussion of "Sentience & Sensibility" took place. I was very surprised by the sheer lack of attendance, considering how interesting it turned out to be. Based on the discussion, I will definitely read the remaining chapters of the book to catch up on what was hinted at by Silliman, but not covered in the class readings.
My own question, on the genocide in Sudan was given a good deal of class time to discuss. I asked whether or not deliberate and willful ignorance was responsible for the almost entire lack of humanitarian and commercial media attention for the crisis was one of the main reasons for the genocide and the overall refusal to take moral obligation for the problem and make steps to correct it.
The answer was, while not optimistic, sensible. It's too late, and while it's not preferrable by anyone, military force may be the only recourse left to us. The real question is how we as a world power, and the United Nations (along with the rest of the world) let the situation in Darfur to get to this critical mass. His examples about the Kosovo incident were especially interesting because from personal experience I've met refugees from that situation (my aunt took an entire family of them into one of her larger estates and set them up in one of the rental buildings for free for almost 6 months). It just brings home the fact that the only time things like this make the news is when it's far too late for a peaceful resolution. War makes headlines, not peace.
I'd have to agree with Silliman's suggestion to simply ignore and turn off commercial media. They're only connection to the news happens after it's already too late to fix the conflict.
My own question, on the genocide in Sudan was given a good deal of class time to discuss. I asked whether or not deliberate and willful ignorance was responsible for the almost entire lack of humanitarian and commercial media attention for the crisis was one of the main reasons for the genocide and the overall refusal to take moral obligation for the problem and make steps to correct it.
The answer was, while not optimistic, sensible. It's too late, and while it's not preferrable by anyone, military force may be the only recourse left to us. The real question is how we as a world power, and the United Nations (along with the rest of the world) let the situation in Darfur to get to this critical mass. His examples about the Kosovo incident were especially interesting because from personal experience I've met refugees from that situation (my aunt took an entire family of them into one of her larger estates and set them up in one of the rental buildings for free for almost 6 months). It just brings home the fact that the only time things like this make the news is when it's far too late for a peaceful resolution. War makes headlines, not peace.
I'd have to agree with Silliman's suggestion to simply ignore and turn off commercial media. They're only connection to the news happens after it's already too late to fix the conflict.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Book review choice
I decided to settle on the topic of Animal Experimentation for my final book review for the class. I nearly went with animal abuse, or hunting, but I figured that the moral issues surrouning both of those seem less in question than animal experimentation.
Both laypeople and scientists are of divided mind about vivisection, and reading a book devoted to the moral issues related to it seemed like a smart move on my part. I found a book at Freel Library on it, and I'm looking forwards to sinking my teeth into it.
Both laypeople and scientists are of divided mind about vivisection, and reading a book devoted to the moral issues related to it seemed like a smart move on my part. I found a book at Freel Library on it, and I'm looking forwards to sinking my teeth into it.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
We didn't start the fire.
With the events on Patriot's day in Virginia fresh in our minds, it seems to be an appropriate time to address the disturbing habit of humanity for conflict. Having just recently seen Billy Joel perform his hit song "We didn't start the fire" live (last night, actually), this idea is further entrenched in my mind at present.
I can think of no other animal that has this propensity for conflict. We cause mass extinctions, habitat destruction, and mass-murder of nonhuman animals, and we do the same to other humans, as well. The Darfur conflict, the Holocaust, and the Crusades are but some examples, not to mention school shootings like this latest Virginia Tech incident, or that infamous day in 2001, September 11.
What is it about humanity that makes this senseless tendency towards extreme violence so common? Is it biology? I doubt it. We differ only by a chromosome or two from many other nonhuman species, but it is not nearly so common to find murder in the animal kingdom aside from humans.
Granted, nonhuman animals fight occasionally. For breeding rights, and for territory, but even Grizzly bears rarely kill eachother, even in combat. The weaker opponent will back off, not being prevented, by pride, from admitting defeat.
My guess is that it's our culture. The dog-eat-dog competitive spirit that infuses American society, for instance, is no doubt responsible for many social conflicts, including the prevailing distaste for homeless and poor people by the bulk of American society.
I can think of no other animal that has this propensity for conflict. We cause mass extinctions, habitat destruction, and mass-murder of nonhuman animals, and we do the same to other humans, as well. The Darfur conflict, the Holocaust, and the Crusades are but some examples, not to mention school shootings like this latest Virginia Tech incident, or that infamous day in 2001, September 11.
What is it about humanity that makes this senseless tendency towards extreme violence so common? Is it biology? I doubt it. We differ only by a chromosome or two from many other nonhuman species, but it is not nearly so common to find murder in the animal kingdom aside from humans.
Granted, nonhuman animals fight occasionally. For breeding rights, and for territory, but even Grizzly bears rarely kill eachother, even in combat. The weaker opponent will back off, not being prevented, by pride, from admitting defeat.
My guess is that it's our culture. The dog-eat-dog competitive spirit that infuses American society, for instance, is no doubt responsible for many social conflicts, including the prevailing distaste for homeless and poor people by the bulk of American society.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Animal Planet
I'll not deny that I love the Animal Planet channel. Some of the programs are silly, true enough, but it's always nice to see people actually making some effort to conserve wildlife and protect endangered species, as well as domesticated ones.
Some programs, like "Meerkat Manor" got me thinking. Wildlife seems most popular only when it is humanized. The meer kats are famous only for the fact, it seems, that they have names and Sean Astin is narrating what seems to be their motivations and thoughts. It's likely the same reason why the first documentary explained why pet product sales are booming, with little outfits now designed for canine pals.
Must our species always humanize nonhuman animals in order to care about their plight?
Some programs, like "Meerkat Manor" got me thinking. Wildlife seems most popular only when it is humanized. The meer kats are famous only for the fact, it seems, that they have names and Sean Astin is narrating what seems to be their motivations and thoughts. It's likely the same reason why the first documentary explained why pet product sales are booming, with little outfits now designed for canine pals.
Must our species always humanize nonhuman animals in order to care about their plight?
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Second Film- Animal Awareness
Despite the fact that some people believe that animals are not aware of the world around them, or other creatures that exist alongside them, there are plenty of instances where animals have come through for humans without needing to be trained to do it.
The gorrilla at the beginning of the film we saw last class is one example. Instead of ignoring the hurt child, or attacking, the silver-back kept the others of his family unit away from the boy, and touched him gently.
There have been similar instances at zoos were primates have actually cradled injured children that have fallen into their enclosures. Dogs have rescued people, cats I'm sure have done the same in their own way, if only by alerting owners to danger.
Are these not instances of animal awareness beyond simple stimuli (fear, pain, hunger)? The film raised plenty of questions, but I never got the sense that any of them were answered.
The gorrilla at the beginning of the film we saw last class is one example. Instead of ignoring the hurt child, or attacking, the silver-back kept the others of his family unit away from the boy, and touched him gently.
There have been similar instances at zoos were primates have actually cradled injured children that have fallen into their enclosures. Dogs have rescued people, cats I'm sure have done the same in their own way, if only by alerting owners to danger.
Are these not instances of animal awareness beyond simple stimuli (fear, pain, hunger)? The film raised plenty of questions, but I never got the sense that any of them were answered.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Dr. Greek's Suggested Reading
I'm not positive what I'll read for my report on a book for A&E class, but I've got a list that I obtained from the NAVS site that I may look into. I've provided it for use by other students in the class, too, if they are still looking around for something.
They are organized by theme.
********************
Anti-Vivisection
Greek, C. Ray, and Jean Swingle Greek. Sacred Cows and Golden Geese. New York:
Continuum, 2000.
Greek, C. Ray, and Jean Swingle Greek. Specious Science. New York: Continuum, 2002.
Greek, Jean Swingle, and C. Ray Greek. What Will We Do If We Don’t Experiment On
Animals? Victoria: Trafford, 2004.
LaFollette, Hugh, and Niall Shanks. Brute Science: Dilemmas of Animals Experimentation
(Philosophical Issues in Science). London: Routledge, 1996.
Vyvyan, John. The Dark Face of Science. Joseph, 1971.
Vyvyan, John. In Pity and In Anger: A Study of the Use of Animals in Science. Transatlantic
Arts, 1972.
Rupke, N.A. (ed.) Vivisection in Historical Perspective. London: Routledge, 1990.
Logic and Critical Thought
Schick, T.S., and Lewis Vaughn. How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a
New Age. New York: McGraw-Hill 3rd edition, 2002.
Walton, Douglas. Informal Logic. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Brenner, William H. Logic and Philosophy. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press,
1993.
Science
Curd, Martin, and J.A. Cover. Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues. New York: W.W
Norton Publishing, 1998.
Midgley, Mary. Science As Salvation: A Modern Myth and It’s Meaning. London:
Routledge, 1994.
Midgley, Mary. Evolution As A Religion. London: Methuen, 1985.
*Gross, Paul R., and Norman Levitt. Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its
Quarrels With Science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.
*Gross, Paul R., Norman Levitt, and Martin W. Lewis. The Flight From Science And
Reason. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1997.
*"While I strongly disagree with the authors’ opinions on the use of animals in biomedical research and on
their premise of why the animal rights movement exists, the books are never the less well worth reading for
what the authors have to say about how science is viewed in our time," Dr. Greek.
Valiela, Ivan. Doing Science. London: Oxford University Press. 2001.
Animal Rights/Protection
Griffin, Donald. Animal Minds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. University of
Chicago Press 1992.
Regan, Tom. The Case For Animal Rights. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983.
Regan, Tom. Empty Cages: Facing the Challenge of Animal Rights. Lanham, MD: Rowman
& Littlefield Publishers, 2004.
Midgley, Mary. Animals and Why They Matter. Athens: University of Georgia Press;
Reissue edition, 1998.
Regan, Tom, and Peter Singer, eds. Animal Rights and Human Obligations (2nd Edition).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1989.
Dombroski, Daniel. Babies and Beasts: The Argument from Marginal Cases. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press, 1997.
The Legal Case for Animal Research
Wise, Steven. Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights for Animals. Cambridge: Perseus
Books, 2001.
Wise, Steven M. Drawing the Line: Science and the Case for Animal Rights. Cambridge:
Perseus Books, 2003.
Religion and Animal Research
Scully, Mathew. Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to
Mercy. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2003.
McDaniel, Jay B. Of God and Pelicans: A Theology of Reverence for Life. Westminster:
John Knox Press, 1st ed edition, 1989.
Webb, Stephen H. On God and Dogs: A Christian Theology of Compassion for Animals.
London: Oxford University Press, New Edition, 2001.
They are organized by theme.
********************
Anti-Vivisection
Greek, C. Ray, and Jean Swingle Greek. Sacred Cows and Golden Geese. New York:
Continuum, 2000.
Greek, C. Ray, and Jean Swingle Greek. Specious Science. New York: Continuum, 2002.
Greek, Jean Swingle, and C. Ray Greek. What Will We Do If We Don’t Experiment On
Animals? Victoria: Trafford, 2004.
LaFollette, Hugh, and Niall Shanks. Brute Science: Dilemmas of Animals Experimentation
(Philosophical Issues in Science). London: Routledge, 1996.
Vyvyan, John. The Dark Face of Science. Joseph, 1971.
Vyvyan, John. In Pity and In Anger: A Study of the Use of Animals in Science. Transatlantic
Arts, 1972.
Rupke, N.A. (ed.) Vivisection in Historical Perspective. London: Routledge, 1990.
Logic and Critical Thought
Schick, T.S., and Lewis Vaughn. How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a
New Age. New York: McGraw-Hill 3rd edition, 2002.
Walton, Douglas. Informal Logic. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Brenner, William H. Logic and Philosophy. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press,
1993.
Science
Curd, Martin, and J.A. Cover. Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues. New York: W.W
Norton Publishing, 1998.
Midgley, Mary. Science As Salvation: A Modern Myth and It’s Meaning. London:
Routledge, 1994.
Midgley, Mary. Evolution As A Religion. London: Methuen, 1985.
*Gross, Paul R., and Norman Levitt. Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its
Quarrels With Science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.
*Gross, Paul R., Norman Levitt, and Martin W. Lewis. The Flight From Science And
Reason. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1997.
*"While I strongly disagree with the authors’ opinions on the use of animals in biomedical research and on
their premise of why the animal rights movement exists, the books are never the less well worth reading for
what the authors have to say about how science is viewed in our time," Dr. Greek.
Valiela, Ivan. Doing Science. London: Oxford University Press. 2001.
Animal Rights/Protection
Griffin, Donald. Animal Minds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. University of
Chicago Press 1992.
Regan, Tom. The Case For Animal Rights. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983.
Regan, Tom. Empty Cages: Facing the Challenge of Animal Rights. Lanham, MD: Rowman
& Littlefield Publishers, 2004.
Midgley, Mary. Animals and Why They Matter. Athens: University of Georgia Press;
Reissue edition, 1998.
Regan, Tom, and Peter Singer, eds. Animal Rights and Human Obligations (2nd Edition).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1989.
Dombroski, Daniel. Babies and Beasts: The Argument from Marginal Cases. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press, 1997.
The Legal Case for Animal Research
Wise, Steven. Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights for Animals. Cambridge: Perseus
Books, 2001.
Wise, Steven M. Drawing the Line: Science and the Case for Animal Rights. Cambridge:
Perseus Books, 2003.
Religion and Animal Research
Scully, Mathew. Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to
Mercy. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2003.
McDaniel, Jay B. Of God and Pelicans: A Theology of Reverence for Life. Westminster:
John Knox Press, 1st ed edition, 1989.
Webb, Stephen H. On God and Dogs: A Christian Theology of Compassion for Animals.
London: Oxford University Press, New Edition, 2001.
Vivisection
In class today, we discussed the moral implications of a variety of topics, but one caught my attention the most.
The idea that experimenting on animals is considered a "need" by many that practice it, yet other alternatives are available, contradicting the idea of it being a need at all.
The National Anti-Vivisection Society (www.NAVS.org), based in Chicago, IL, combats animal experimentation and fights to close labs that practice it. According to the home page, "NAVS promotes greater compassion, respect and justice for animals through educational programs based on respected ethical and scientific theory and supported by extensive documentation of the cruelty and waste of vivisection."
Instead of experimenting on animals, NAVS suggests using human clinical trials for new drugs, because they are more effective and voluntary. Nobody will be forced into something, as animal test subjects are. Using animal models for human drugs doesn't work very well anyway since human biology is significantly different than animals so that drugs that work on the animals to combat certain things may not work on humans at all.
There is proof that in some cases drugs that cause birth defects in animals do not cause the same in humans. Some tumors in animals go away without drugs, whereas linger in humans without treatment. Why are animal models being used at all?
For the same reason why drugs tested on dogs and that work on dogs should not be used on cats, drugs tested on animals and work should not be used on humans.
The idea that experimenting on animals is considered a "need" by many that practice it, yet other alternatives are available, contradicting the idea of it being a need at all.
The National Anti-Vivisection Society (www.NAVS.org), based in Chicago, IL, combats animal experimentation and fights to close labs that practice it. According to the home page, "NAVS promotes greater compassion, respect and justice for animals through educational programs based on respected ethical and scientific theory and supported by extensive documentation of the cruelty and waste of vivisection."
Instead of experimenting on animals, NAVS suggests using human clinical trials for new drugs, because they are more effective and voluntary. Nobody will be forced into something, as animal test subjects are. Using animal models for human drugs doesn't work very well anyway since human biology is significantly different than animals so that drugs that work on the animals to combat certain things may not work on humans at all.
There is proof that in some cases drugs that cause birth defects in animals do not cause the same in humans. Some tumors in animals go away without drugs, whereas linger in humans without treatment. Why are animal models being used at all?
For the same reason why drugs tested on dogs and that work on dogs should not be used on cats, drugs tested on animals and work should not be used on humans.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Freedom, Religion and Moral Quandaries
In class today, we viewed the documentary: "To Love or to Kill: Man vs. Animals" and I'll admit that at times I could barely keep watching it.
Seeing cats be bashed over the head and boiled alive was very hard for me, as a cat-lover, but that wasn't the only part I had trouble with. The simple fact that humans don't seem to know quite how to deal with animals is more disturbing by far.
The documentary showed both extremes of the situation. Canned hunts and animal experimentation/ consumption practices, to extreme Vegans acting as part of their religion in such a way that it helps foster human starvation and the spread of virulent illnesses like the Bubonic plague because rats are held so sacred that killing them is believed to be an offense against the Gods.
The connection between religion and the treatment of animals was perhaps one of the most interesting, if hard accept, parts of the documentary. Being raised Catholic in America, I did not realize that other Catholic-dominated countries in the world resorted to what amounts to animal sacrifice, especially countries that are considered "modern", like Spain. Throwing goats out of tower windows and torturing bulls until they simply give up the fight (and are then shot on the steps of a church, no less) are sickening displays of ego. Somehow, I don't understand why torturing animals venerates the Catholic Patron saint of animals, Saint Francis of Assisi. It sounds more like an excuse in place of a justification.
The idea that brutalizing animals is somehow a holy and honorable thing makes me sick. It is no better than the Canned Hunts, where the entire idea is not for the challenge of a sport. The idea is an easy kill, skipping all the steps that predators in the wild have to go through, in order to obtain their prey. The animals used in these hunts are purchased beforehand, and given no chance of survival by the hunter. They are killed in such a way that it takes them a long time to die (the ram in the documentary took 45 minutes to bleed to death, suffering all the while), to prolong the "enjoyment" of the hunter for the killing experience, and to preserve the parts taken as trophies, such as the fur and head. The Pigeon Shooting was even less justifiable because the poor birds are not even needed for anything but as targets. The hunters do not make trophies of them, they are simply ground up and used as fertilizer afterwards. This "sport" involves disorienting and starving the birds, and then letting them loose for the few seconds it takes for them to be shot down. How is that a sport, again? And how the heck is it supposed to be a celebration of American Freedom?
Freedom?! How is caging other animals and letting them loose only to shoot them down in their mad attempt to escape a symbol of freedom? That's like starving a human criminal for a week, then letting him out of his cell to race towards a dinner plate, only to shoot him before he reaches it!
Maybe it's all the fault of religion, but I doubt it. Religion is the excuse. Just like it was "alright" for English Crusaders to invade Islamic Countries, it is acceptable to stab and shoot "lesser" animals because a book says so. Please. What kind of garbage is that? No, religion is just an excuse. Humans do these things for ego-trips. The whole "I'm king of the world" thing. They do it for the same reason that rape happens among humans. It's all about power, and the ones that have it lord it over, and force it down the throats of those that don't.
Seeing cats be bashed over the head and boiled alive was very hard for me, as a cat-lover, but that wasn't the only part I had trouble with. The simple fact that humans don't seem to know quite how to deal with animals is more disturbing by far.
The documentary showed both extremes of the situation. Canned hunts and animal experimentation/ consumption practices, to extreme Vegans acting as part of their religion in such a way that it helps foster human starvation and the spread of virulent illnesses like the Bubonic plague because rats are held so sacred that killing them is believed to be an offense against the Gods.
The connection between religion and the treatment of animals was perhaps one of the most interesting, if hard accept, parts of the documentary. Being raised Catholic in America, I did not realize that other Catholic-dominated countries in the world resorted to what amounts to animal sacrifice, especially countries that are considered "modern", like Spain. Throwing goats out of tower windows and torturing bulls until they simply give up the fight (and are then shot on the steps of a church, no less) are sickening displays of ego. Somehow, I don't understand why torturing animals venerates the Catholic Patron saint of animals, Saint Francis of Assisi. It sounds more like an excuse in place of a justification.
The idea that brutalizing animals is somehow a holy and honorable thing makes me sick. It is no better than the Canned Hunts, where the entire idea is not for the challenge of a sport. The idea is an easy kill, skipping all the steps that predators in the wild have to go through, in order to obtain their prey. The animals used in these hunts are purchased beforehand, and given no chance of survival by the hunter. They are killed in such a way that it takes them a long time to die (the ram in the documentary took 45 minutes to bleed to death, suffering all the while), to prolong the "enjoyment" of the hunter for the killing experience, and to preserve the parts taken as trophies, such as the fur and head. The Pigeon Shooting was even less justifiable because the poor birds are not even needed for anything but as targets. The hunters do not make trophies of them, they are simply ground up and used as fertilizer afterwards. This "sport" involves disorienting and starving the birds, and then letting them loose for the few seconds it takes for them to be shot down. How is that a sport, again? And how the heck is it supposed to be a celebration of American Freedom?
Freedom?! How is caging other animals and letting them loose only to shoot them down in their mad attempt to escape a symbol of freedom? That's like starving a human criminal for a week, then letting him out of his cell to race towards a dinner plate, only to shoot him before he reaches it!
Maybe it's all the fault of religion, but I doubt it. Religion is the excuse. Just like it was "alright" for English Crusaders to invade Islamic Countries, it is acceptable to stab and shoot "lesser" animals because a book says so. Please. What kind of garbage is that? No, religion is just an excuse. Humans do these things for ego-trips. The whole "I'm king of the world" thing. They do it for the same reason that rape happens among humans. It's all about power, and the ones that have it lord it over, and force it down the throats of those that don't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
