From the perspective of which tribe?

In my research into the morality of trapping mice in the previous post, I stumbled onto a very interesting debate about the immorality of glue traps and the need to ban them. While the conventional AR philosophy holds that glue traps should be banned, the discussion devolved into a practical question of whether or not the old-fashioned "snap traps" might be the most humane approach:

You know the little plastic boxes which catch the mice live? For later release? They are problematic in that if you don't check them daily, the mice starve in 'em. So, the plain old spring/squash 'em traps are best, ironically.
A commenter named "Gyspy" (soon to be called a Nazi butcher) lamented her anguish over the situation, reviewed her problems living in a rodent-infested home, described the torment she went through when she called an exterminator, but maintained (gasp!) that she didn't want rodents living in her house:
in my fanciful mind, i want the word to get out in the underground that my house is not open for the rodent kingdom, go somewhere else.

i hadn't posted in awhile and i guess this is just one of those topics that caught me this morning in one of those moods.

sorry for ranting...

This drew immediate and repeated cries of outrage by "Antoine," who thinks killing mice is indistinguishable from killing humans:
....this is an animal RIGHTS tribe, which means that all animals are considered to have basic rights (the right to live being a very basic one) so it isn't about living in harmony with "critters" it is to acknowledge that they have just as much of a right to live there as you do, and if you would not like them inside your home, then make sure your home is clean, and that all foodstufff is put away in tight plastic, ceramic or glass containers.

Plus whether it is HUMANE or not is a welfare issue NOT a rights issue. It is NEVER humane to kill someone. And the snap traps do just that...they kill them and most times they just catch the animals in the midsection and leave them to agonize for hours or days and die slowly of internal bleeding...

But regardless of which one may make you feel better about yourself...any killing of any animal is not acceptable...EVERE...we here in an animal RIGHTS tribe would HAVE to check the no-kill traps more than once a day...although, still deterrents are MUCH better than traps, because the idea is to make them leave on their own, rather than putting them outside (which is futile because they came from the outside so can easily just make their way BACK in.

Snap and glue traps are ALWAYS a violation of an animal's RIGHTS ... KILLING someone being a pretty big violation of someone's RIGHTS.... which I think is why the original poster posted the info for the ban glue traps tribe here, NOT to have a discussion of the best way to kill mice or of whether or not it is EVER acceptable to kill them.

You may rant by I personally think that your rant is TOTALLY not welcome here, at least not by me.

This caused Gypsy to apologize, but that apology was not enough for Antoine, who then likened her to a Nazi butcher:
Nice high horse you are climbing on, say that to the mice that died.
It isn't about feeling better.

let me understand this Gypsy, YOU come on an ANIMAL RIGHTS tribe and say that snap traps (that KILL MICE) is acceptable...and I am the bad guy?

play the victim all you want...if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem...I DO NOT apologise to speciesist and omni-apologists, and animal abusers.

I am working very hard to achieve total animal liberation and a free society...as many of the members of this tribe are as well...and I personally don't care or want your apologies...just stop killing non-hum,an...and if you want to apologize to someone apologize to the mice that you killed.

Should someone in the resistance apologise to a Nazi that he may have offended, an abolitionist apologise to a slave-owner who may have taken some things the wrong way?
A sufragette apolgize to a wife-beater who was "misunderstood"

and I do not apologise to butchers...not to antagonize!!! what? so talking about killing mice for your own convenience in an ANIMAL RIGHTS TRIBE??? you don't think that may perhaps antagonize its members??

wtf??


According to Antoine, people like me are of course part of the problem, and I'm not welcome even to comment at the site. (Which is why I thought I should post about it here instead.)

If you don't believe in Animal Rights you are part of the problem...I prefer to be part of the solution.

I think that it is clear that butchers, psychopaths, animal agriculturists, animal experimenter's or any animal abusers of any kind are not invited here. Unless they are willing to reject their evil ways and join us in the struggle towards Animal Rights.

Animal Rights mean rejecting speciesism and giving all Animals basic rights...oh and please don't bring up a lion killing a gazelle to me, and whether the lion has the right to do so, last I checked neither of us are lions...lions may have their own morality I am only concerned with human morality, I will let lions judge themsleves.

Animal Rights imply the recognition BY HUMANS of NON-HUMAN Rights and to see it otherwise is to trivialize.

and besides lions never created factory farming.

Sometimes it helps to know that you're a butcher and a psychopath.

It actually brightened my day.

MORE: If these perspectives brightened your day, there's plenty more at Antoine's blog, the guiding principle of which is expressed as follows:

racism = speciesism = sexism
it all means the same thing but speciesism kills billions every year!
Genocide, I tell you.

And lest you think we're natural meat eaters, forget it! Being descended from Paleolithic hunter gatherers won't get you meat eaters off the hook, as the meat eating was an aberration indulged in by people who had no right to be living in northern climates:

physical evidence of human flesh-eating, such as tool-scarred bones or ancient fire pits, is found only in northern areas which are well outside of the natural ecological niche for our tropical ape species; thus, any evidence of cultural diets so remote from our proper ecological niche is totally irrelevant to any understanding of what the natural diet for our species is. This ecologically-relevant, and crucially-important fact is universally, and conveniently, ignored in any discussions of Paleolithic humans. Paleolithic (tool using) humans are not natural humans and are just as irrelevant as any modern cultural group and their modern self-destructive dietary practices.

Further, "Because of the considerably harsher conditions and seasonal variation in food supply, hunting became more important to bridge the seasonal gaps, as well as the ability to store nonperishable items such as nuts, bulbs, and tubers for the winter when the edible plants withered in the autumn. All of these factors, along with clothing (and also perhaps fire), helped enable colonization of the less hospitable environment." clearly admits that such humans were well outside of thier natural ecological niche which would provide the proper nutrition for our species, thus they were forced to consume highly foreign, non-natural "foods" just to survive. So, it is obvious that any claims as to the applicability of the Paleolithic diet to any understanding of the natural diet for our species are totally, and unavoidably, bogus.

If only there were some way to spread the word. I think that if ordinary people knew how incredibly guilty they were, something might be done.

As to all you pet owners out there, remember. Having pets is unethical.

(I'll try to keep it a secret from Coco....)

UPDATE: Speaking of tribal perspectives, humancentric Professor Ann Althouse (linked by the speciesistic Glenn Reynolds) seems blissfully unconcerned with Paleolithic man's proper place. Reports Althouse:

...anthropologists Steven L. Kuhn and Mary C. Stiner theorize that the women must have joined the men in hunting for large animals.
But now that we know hunting for large animals is an unnatural phenomenon resulting from humans being "well outside of their natural ecological niche," doesn't that beg the question of precisely which violations of natural law caused the demise of the Neanderthals?

posted by Eric on 12.04.06 at 11:11 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/4299






Comments

Isn't the obvious solution to invite a cat into your apartment as a roommate, charge it "x" number of mice per month, then release it back into it's freedom after the job is done?

There, the cat can have it's morality, thereby killing the mice, and I can follow my human morality in giving it a room in an equal partner/contractual relationship.

bellisaurius   ·  December 4, 2006 12:34 PM

My lip turned upward in an involuntary grin when Antoine dared accuse his opponent of being on a "high horse". The irony and the embedded speciesism boggle my narrow little mind.

But not being one to look a gift horse in the mouth when someone steps in it so badly while they are howling at the moon, I call on Antoine to:

- Renounce the inhumane, immoral use of non-human species in all metaphors, especially of the clicheed variety.

- Take steps toward the removal of his so-called "white" blood cells, the bringers of death to innumerable non-human organisms

- Work with those of other species to avoid killing one another, especially for the defense of territory, but even for food. Their example has led countless humans to infer that killing for food or territory is acceptable

- Begin speaking truth to power about the desperate need for an alternative to the evil Food Chain (alias "The Web of Death")

Together, we can slay this beast.

Socrates   ·  December 4, 2006 01:39 PM

If you believe these animals have a right to life than you have to believe no animal has the right to kill another animal. Therefore you have to make every wild carnivore starve to death. How can these people walk around and function?

Harkonnendog   ·  December 4, 2006 03:26 PM

He's full of it about prehistoric human hunters. Chimpanzees hunt monkeys and other animals for food and our common ancestry with them is 6,000,000 years ago, so our ancestors have probably been hunting for at least that long -- that is, longer than we've been human.

Infidel753   ·  December 4, 2006 04:02 PM

How can these people walk around and function?

Aren't you making assumptions there, Hark?

:)

Eric Scheie   ·  December 5, 2006 11:17 AM

Having gone through reincarnation for, at least, the past 80,000 years, I can honestly say that killing mice is not murder, it's more like a promotion.

Alan Kellogg   ·  December 6, 2006 09:57 PM

Moral relativism! Next you'll be saying it's OK to swat flies!

Eric Scheie   ·  December 7, 2006 04:01 PM


March 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits