Letters
LISTEN HERE
 Jessica Goyder is the latest musician to put her singles on our site. Listen here
| THE INSIDER
 Get the lowdown inside the corridors of power in Oxfordshire here.
| SEND AN OBITUARY
Send us a tribute to someone who has passed away
| ON YER BIKE
 Get the view from the gutter with cycling group Cyclox in Oxfordshire
|
|
|
|
Animal liberty
I suspect Edward Sanderson (Oxford Mail, June 30) is indulging in a little bit of hypocrisy when he talks about liberty for living creatures.
What he means is liberty for fluffy bunnies or pretty little foxes, although liberty for one is mutually exclusive to liberty for the other.
Mr Sanderson misses out the millions of living creatures that he destroys every day or that are destroyed on his behalf.
I don't know what size he considers a creature to be living, but surely we start with amoebae?
Billions of single cell creatures are killed daily in this country just to produce the tap water Mr Sanderson drinks, but that's all right.
Likewise, unless he lives in utter squalour, he kills bacteria, viruses, insects, bed bugs and billions of other small creatures to live his life - his own antibodies are ferocious killing machines.
If he buys fruit and veg, it is washed and treated to kill off the caterpillars and insect eggs that infest it.
To produce industrial scale crops, wildlife habitat is destroyed in this and all other countries, or does Mr Sanderson think no harm falls to animals if their habitat is destroyed to produce wheat or oilseed rape?
Is he OK with foxes choosing to tear animals limb from limb or birds feeding live caterpillars to their young etc?
What about those victims? What of their rights as living creatures?
Killing one fox can save hundreds of short-tailed voles. Killing one owl can save hundreds of field mice.
Unnecessary cruelty can be condemned, but to extend the rights we now have as humans to animals is risible.
PAUL WESSON
Brome Way
Carterton
12:48pm Thursday 3rd July 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: Zimmer on 2:22pm Thu 3 Jul 08
Well said.
Posted by: Sue, London on 2:08am Sat 5 Jul 08
[italic]but to extend the rights we now have as humans to animals is risible[/italic]
No-one is saying animals need all the same rights as humans but that they need and should have fundamental rights.
Those who are against animal rights should consider whether they can answer this question - and if they cannot then it is their duty to support rights for animals -
'What is the basis to exclude animals from the circle of compassion that does not also justify racism, sexism, etc?'
but to extend the rights we now have as humans to animals is risible
No-one is saying animals need all the same rights as humans but that they need and should have fundamental rights.
Those who are against animal rights should consider whether they can answer this question - and if they cannot then it is their duty to support rights for animals -
'What is the basis to exclude animals from the circle of compassion that does not also justify racism, sexism, etc?'
Posted by: Alan Page, Guildford on 11:52am Sat 5 Jul 08
[quote][bold]Sue[/bold] wrote:
[italic]but to extend the rights we now have as humans to animals is risible[/italic] No-one is saying animals need all the same rights as humans but that they need and should have fundamental rights. Those who are against animal rights should consider whether they can answer this question - and if they cannot then it is their duty to support rights for animals - 'What is the basis to exclude animals from the circle of compassion that does not also justify racism, sexism, etc?'[/quote] But, as the letter points out, in order to carry such an illogical argument to its ultimate end you would have to starve.
Sue wrote:
but to extend the rights we now have as humans to animals is risible No-one is saying animals need all the same rights as humans but that they need and should have fundamental rights. Those who are against animal rights should consider whether they can answer this question - and if they cannot then it is their duty to support rights for animals - 'What is the basis to exclude animals from the circle of compassion that does not also justify racism, sexism, etc?'
But, as the letter points out, in order to carry such an illogical argument to its ultimate end you would have to starve.
Posted by: Sue, London on 10:44pm Sat 5 Jul 08
What is 'illogical' about the argument?
Why would you have to starve?
Can you actually answer the question 'What is the basis to exclude animals from the circle of compassion that does not also justify racism, sexism, etc?'
What is 'illogical' about the argument?
Why would you have to starve?
Can you actually answer the question 'What is the basis to exclude animals from the circle of compassion that does not also justify racism, sexism, etc?'
Posted by: Alan Page, Guildford on 2:04pm Sun 6 Jul 08
[quote][bold]Sue[/bold] wrote:
What is 'illogical' about the argument? Why would you have to starve? Can you actually answer the question 'What is the basis to exclude animals from the circle of compassion that does not also justify racism, sexism, etc?'[/quote] Just read the letter Sue.
And bear in mind not everybody is as gullible at falling for absurd rhetorical questions as you would appear to be.
Rather like the other classic posed by evangelicals: "When Jesus claimed to be god incarnate he was either telling the truth or a demented lunatic who's ethical teaching is untrustworthy."
Doesn't work with me.
Sue wrote:
What is 'illogical' about the argument? Why would you have to starve? Can you actually answer the question 'What is the basis to exclude animals from the circle of compassion that does not also justify racism, sexism, etc?'
Just read the letter Sue.
And bear in mind not everybody is as gullible at falling for absurd rhetorical questions as you would appear to be.
Rather like the other classic posed by evangelicals: "When Jesus claimed to be god incarnate he was either telling the truth or a demented lunatic who's ethical teaching is untrustworthy."
Doesn't work with me.
Posted by: Paul Wesson, Carterton on 2:17pm Mon 14 Jul 08
Sue,
You didn't read the letter. If you believe that animals have a right to a 'roof over their heads' or a right to their habitat then all farming must cease. Billions of small creatures are killed every year just to produce bread, or do you think that nature intended square fields with a few hedgerows? Do you think wheat grows tall and strong without insecticides that kill the food supply of rodents?
Animals cannot have 'liberty', as originally postulated, without mankind sacrificing his right to clear forest and heath to make way for his fields and orchards.
That's the way the world works and to pretend otherwise is just unrealistic.
Paul Wesson
Sue,
You didn't read the letter. If you believe that animals have a right to a 'roof over their heads' or a right to their habitat then all farming must cease. Billions of small creatures are killed every year just to produce bread, or do you think that nature intended square fields with a few hedgerows? Do you think wheat grows tall and strong without insecticides that kill the food supply of rodents?
Animals cannot have 'liberty', as originally postulated, without mankind sacrificing his right to clear forest and heath to make way for his fields and orchards.
That's the way the world works and to pretend otherwise is just unrealistic.
Paul Wesson
Posted by: Sue, London on 1:31am Sat 19 Jul 08
[italic]And bear in mind not everybody is as gullible at falling for absurd rhetorical questions as you would appear to be.[/italic]
I see, you cannot actually answer the question but rather than admit you can't you resort to a silly insult.
And bear in mind not everybody is as gullible at falling for absurd rhetorical questions as you would appear to be.
I see, you cannot actually answer the question but rather than admit you can't you resort to a silly insult.
Posted by: Sue, London on 2:09am Sat 19 Jul 08
Paul, I did read the letter but of course we [bold]can[/bold] share this planet with other species, and remember it isn't 'ours' every species on it exists here in their own right, it's just that the greed-driven 'kill, kill, kill' mentality currently prevails.
As I've said before - no-one is saying humans have to live overrun with mice or rats or fleas etc, the principle of self-defence applies as it does with other humans, but we do have a moral duty not to just unthinkingly kill...and where eg due to size, parasitic nature etc, only the self-defence principle applies to find and use the most humane methods.
The self-defence principle is of course entirely different from debiberately seeking out and exploiting / enslaving / abusing / killing for entertainment or financial gain or palate, etc.
Paul, I did read the letter but of course we
can share this planet with other species, and remember it isn't 'ours' every species on it exists here in their own right, it's just that the greed-driven 'kill, kill, kill' mentality currently prevails.
As I've said before - no-one is saying humans have to live overrun with mice or rats or fleas etc, the principle of self-defence applies as it does with other humans, but we do have a moral duty not to just unthinkingly kill...and where eg due to size, parasitic nature etc, only the self-defence principle applies to find and use the most humane methods.
The self-defence principle is of course entirely different from debiberately seeking out and exploiting / enslaving / abusing / killing for entertainment or financial gain or palate, etc.
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
