October 17, 2005
-
In response to this week’s topic on Socrates Café I offer a reprint of a post on animal rights I did back in February:
WHAT RIGHTS DOES LITTLE BUNNY FOO-FOO HAVE?
As I was driving down the interstate today I spotted a billboard which featured a huge picture of Pamela Anderson next to a quotation that proclaimed “Boycott Kentucky Fried Chicken.” Additional text on the billboard explained that the reason for the proposed boycott was that KFC was guilty of such crimes against chickens as “live scalding” and “painful de-beaking.” For a brief moment I pondered why the group responsible for the billboard would pick Pamela Anderson as the spokesperson. Suddenly the “succulent white breast meat” correlation became glaringly obvious. I then began to wonder if Tyson or other poultry processing companies have ever secretly experimented with silicone enhanced chickens. (In honor of my hero, Dave Barry, I would like to note that “Silicone Chickens” would be a great name for a rock band).
Despite the fact that chickens, as a species, do not immediately evoke a sense of empathy and that “de-beaking” sounds suspiciously like a frat house hazing ritual, I hate to see chickens, or any other creature for that matter, treated with cruelty.
While I am firmly in the camp that the rights of animals should be subjugated to the rights of humans, I am sympathetic to the concerns that many animal rights groups address. I think their agenda would be better served however, if they plugged the following holes in their platform:
- They tend to ignore basic science. Some groups like Vegans (which sounds like a cheesy alien character from a bad Star Trek episode) espouse the philosophy that animals should never be used for food and that we should all be vegetarians. If humans had evolved to be strictly vegetarian we would only have teeth that are suited to the tearing and grinding of plant material (incisors and molars) like those of a cow. Instead, we evolved with canines which are specifically designed to tear and shred meat. This is so we can easily digest enough Big Macs so that we have asses that are large enough to make us look like cows.
- They aren’t consistent about what they protect. Animal rights groups are quick to point out the clubbing of baby seals, the netting of dolphins in the tuna industry, and the skinning of fuzzy woodland creatures for the occasional handbag. They don’t seem to be quite so up in arms about creatures that don’t have such a high “cuddle factor.” The French have been serving escargot for centuries and you never hear about a campaign to wipe out cruelty to slugs. (Besides, we all know that God made slugs so that 12 year old boys would have something to pour salt on.)
- Their priorities seem just a tad misguided. They are passionate about preventing cruelty to animals; passionate enough to throw buckets of fake blood on runway models wearing furs. However, the human race seems to still be several millennia away from eradicating the horrific cruelty we perpetuate on each other. I simply wish we could demonstrate some real passion about changing that.
Despite my misgivings, I am against needlessly inflicting pain on animals. I think our Native American brothers and sisters are probably one of the few groups that have ever really gotten the animal thing right. Historically, they would find the concept of not using animals for food, shelter, and other essentials completely laughable. Yet they are the one group of people that show the greatest respect and reverence for the animals they use.
For those of you who think I’m a monster because I don’t actively promote the agenda of animal rights groups I would like to ask that you take a look at the following picture of the animals that rule my home in hopes that I can prove that I’m actually an animal lover.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have some veal cutlets in the oven and I need to check on them.
- They tend to ignore basic science. Some groups like Vegans (which sounds like a cheesy alien character from a bad Star Trek episode) espouse the philosophy that animals should never be used for food and that we should all be vegetarians. If humans had evolved to be strictly vegetarian we would only have teeth that are suited to the tearing and grinding of plant material (incisors and molars) like those of a cow. Instead, we evolved with canines which are specifically designed to tear and shred meat. This is so we can easily digest enough Big Macs so that we have asses that are large enough to make us look like cows.
Comments (32)
fantastic post. I agree and I like that you added humor, very fun to read
Message received. Picture changed. Needles removed
Just visiting from the grown ups blogring. I agree with what you’ve said here. Cruelty to animals is abhorrent, but granting them “rights” is silly.
Super piece of writing!
Oh, c’mon – You can cook veal?
Hello, you wrote a very good blog, truth with humor. I agree with you .Good blog!
I love all your dogs! Are they Shelties or minature Collies?
One has a blue and a brown eye!
Thats really cool.
Good blog, peace and love:)
I have to call you on this one. There are some gross oversimplifications here of vegans, vegetarians, their motivations about their eating habits. I have a Ph.D. in science and am a practising scientist, and I have done the research. Science supports vegetarianism.
Beautiful dogs…I think I agree with you on this topic.I think if food production or cosmetic research ,or even medical science have practices that inflict pain or create extreme distress in animals it ok to ask them to develop alternatve means of getting what needs to be done,done but that aside we need to focus on issues like poverty and war ,and the environment.Good post mark
Handicap – I’m also a practising “scientist” and while I’d rather not clutter up Mlabouff’s blog with our argument, I’d be interested to see the human bilogical and dietary research that you’ve done or cite that indicates that humans should be herbavores. I’d be particularly interested in evolutionary explanations of dental records, the inability of our bodies to produce several crucial amino acids on our own (without the aid of diet which would have to go a loooong way out of its way to avoid meat), and the difficulty of the human stomach to break down several vegetable products, especially in the absence of primarily meat-found proteins.
Sure, science supports that vegetarianism can work for the human organism. But you’d be hard pressed to provide peer-reviewed research that indicates that vegetarianism is the natural and most beneficial thing for the human species.
Appologies for the digression.
Your dogs are adorable… they look like a handful though…
It’s hard for me to say anything about animal rights…since my German Shepherd has the rule of our backyard…she once had the rule of the house; booted my husband out of his reclining chair and everytime I’d go to put her in her kennel for the night she would collapse on the floor and play dead…forcing us to drag her to her kennel. Finally, she got me trained to sing rock -a -bye- baby to her before bed time and that helped temendously.
Here’s to my dog…Xena, Warrior Princess of the Recliner!!!
Great post!
I’m subbing over from the Simone’s page. Love your poochies!!!!! They’re so adorable 
Delightful read. Your approach to this made it serious with a good side helping of humor! I really enjoyed your piece Mark, thank you for sharing. And I too have the same question as someone above me.. Can you really cook veal? Seriously???
~Namaste, T.L.
Funny post. Nice dogs! BTW, I have a good recipe for honey baked whooping crane…
I’ll agree to a point. I can support using animals for medical research. But I can’t support it for testing frills like cosmetics. I certainly eat more than my fair share of animals, but in our age of synthetics, I see no reason to skin them for clothing. And in no case should the research or the slaughter be done in a manner that causes suffering.
My oldest son is going to be in heaven when he sees the pic of you and your dogs. He LOVES Shelties.
I agree with Bad_Dogma: there are definitely boundaries for me too.
I find any extremist group very distasteful, especially when their agenda is based solely upon emotions (as in ignoring science, as you mentioned).
ryc: Thanks for letting me know. Your link is properly corrected
Now, I must make my rounds. I’ll be back here soon to read your post. Simone
Mark, You had me laughing until I found a flaw in your reasoning. It may take some time to present my proof, but I’ll give it a Socratic go. You stated, “If humans had evolved to be strictly vegetarian we would only have teeth that are suited to the tearing and grinding of plant material (incisors and molars) like those of a cow.”
Would you not agree that, evolutionarily speaking, we developed physically according to the demands we placed on our bodies? If your answer is yes, would you also agree that cows developed according to the demands placed on their bodies? If you again answer yes, then what makes us different from a cow? Our teeth and stomach you say (amongst other things)? But what if we had placed the exact demands on our bodies as cows have through time placed on theirs? Would we not have developed similar teeth (and possibly stomachs)?
To say that we have teeth for chewing does not prove that animals are ours to eat. So, again, we must ask the question “Should animals have rights?” which, I’m afraid you have avoided answering
Gotcha!
Oh, yeah, and LOVE the pic of you with your family (note that I said family and not pets). Good to have you with us. Simone
Nice essay. I think that the tooth issue is easily handled by saying that we can grow beyond our mere physical apparatus and become vegetarians. But we also can maintain the right NOT to be vegetarians. It’s a personal choice.
I also agree that Vegans sounds like a race from another planet.
The Native American example was one that I used in my essay too.
BTW, the shelties are just adorable.
Lynn
animal rights doesn’t necessarily go hand in hand with vegetarians… with PETA freaks, yes, but not necessarily with vegetarians. I’m not a vegan, but don’t like to lump vegans in with PETA freaks either. Just a thought…
Appologies again, I just can’t stop:
Madame De Beauvoir –
The flaw would indeed exist if there weren’t a couple of flaws in your premises. First. Evolutionary processes or adaptations do not occur because of the demands “we place on our bodies” but rather, on the demands of the environment upon a particular species.
In looking at the speciation of man through Homo Habilius, one can see that man’s diet changed rather subtly throughout several speciations. Homo Habilius was likely a scavenger, a crow among mammals, and one who ate predominantly meat. The argument Mark is making is not that evolution begets rights, but rather that the science of the human body does not support vegetarianism as a “natural” thing for humans. Just as other omnivores can survive as herbavores, in order to do so their diets must be incredibly well controlled. It’s doable, but certainly not natural.
You pose an interesting question about animal “rights” (I sudder to even say it.) And I would answer from a neurological perspective, but that would get a bit out of hand here. May I join your Socratic discussion with my own post on the topic?
Love the humor you included in your write. Animal rights need to be protected, but how far is too far? One of the things we as humans have been given, is learning to accept all other beings, no matter the differences. Your dogs are delightful.
I enjoyed your post and love the pic of you and your dogs!
Unfortunately, animal rights groups such as PETA have, in my opinion, overshadowed the animal “rights” argument with a bunch of nonsense, such as using former Playboy centerfolds as their chicken spokesperson. I agree that their priorities are misguided, and they have definite flaws in their reasoning. However, I think the concept of animal rights in the form of prevention of deliberate harm, human responsibility to care for domesticated animals, etc. is a reasonable one.
I haven’t been involved with any animal rights groups, but I have spent a lot of time with traditional Native folks. The key is respect, and being thankful to those whose lives we take to nourish our own. We put out a small plate of “spirit food” before we eat and say a thank-you when we take anything – animal, vegetable or mineral – and leave an offering in return. It feels right to me to do things this way.
Oh, and about chickens. I, being raised in NJ, didn’t have a clue about raising critters that weren’t domestic. Having moved to South Dakota, I’m learning about horses, goats and yes, chickens. Chickens have personalities! I kid you not. And they can be funny, motherly, aggressive, sad, playful, and in one case I know all too well, even crazy. It’s a lot more difficult for me to be blase about what goes on my plate, having met (and loved) some of their relatives. So, a thank-you is in order to all those who nourish me.
PS What beautiful, sweet-faced pooches you have! Anyone who shares their home with no less than 4 dogs can’t be all bad.
Give ‘em scratches behind the ears for me. ~ Paloma
I think that animals have the right to be treated kindly while they are alive and to be killed as humanely as possible when they are used for food. I equate cruelty to animals with cruelty to defenseless children. I do eat and enjoy meat, but I would not be able to kill it myself.
I think we can look to the animal world for the answer to this. Animals live as God intended unless people put stress on them that causes them to change. In their natural state, many animals use other animals as a food source. That is the way it is supposed to be.
Good catch to Boofshavik
But we can easily fix this argument: Would you not agree that, evolutionarily speaking, humans developed physically according to the demands placed on our bodies? If your answer is yes, would you also agree that cows developed according to the demands placed on their bodies? If you again answer yes, then what makes humans different from a cow? Our teeth and stomach you say (amongst other things)? But what if the exact demands were placed on human bodies as that was placed through time on cows? Would we not have developed similar teeth (and possibly stomachs)? And, I dare add, would we not have developed as herbivores?–or maybe we would be cows! 
But this is not really the topic (why are we debating veganism without scholarly evidence?). The topic is, “Should animals have rights?” which still has not been answered very well. Whether we eat them or not, this does not answer the question. Can we not eat them and still grant them rights? Regardless, what would those rights be?
Wonderful post, I agree totally with what you have said here. I love it.
I loved reading the comments on this post almost as much as the post itself. Hahaha, and I love the pic!
It’s interesting how on certain topics EVERYONE has an opinion on it. (Animals rights, legalization of drugs, Bush and gay marriage seem to be the top ones. )
Personally, I have a lot of expierence dealing with animals rights extremists and groups (I rescued animals for a long time, worked with several groups in OKC, trained service animals, etc.) Even though I did all that I never advocated many “animal rights” besides basic no-cruelty laws.
Even though, yes, it’s possible for us to live as vegitarians, why would we go against part of what makes us humans? It can be boiled down to very basic progression of the food chain. It may be seen as merciful to some not to eat animals, and horrah to you if you feel that way, but your still going against the nature of who we are and natural food chain of the world.
After reading this I have to wonder where that Socrates lady saw “a lack of reason” as she posted in a comment on another blog. Maybe she didn’t understand the succulent white breast meat analogy. or maybe she actually believes we remove chicken beaks before killing the stupid birds. Not sure. I’d suggest she visit a couple of chicken killing plants or she could go out to the farm and do it the old way…chop off the head and let the body run around until it falls down.
Right in there with the tad misguided and the basic science I am reminded of the Mary Tyler Moore rescue. Who could forget the crates of Lobsters being removed from an inhumane treatment of being boiled alive (which solidifies the poison so it doesn’t infect the meat and we can actually eat the stupid things) and return shipped to Washington State for their release back into the sea. A noble gesture. A grand manuver. An ill-fated death to her public career as her stupidity hit us all glaringly from the news programs….Lobsters arrive dead!
This post has given me a lot of food for thought, but not about animal rights. I’m more concerned about the pluralistic nature of the group and about promoting a forum in which we can substantiate our claims while not grossly offending people. I’m afraid that hasn’t been done here and was not a factor in writing this post. Not only is it offensive, it invites others to call names (as is obvious from the comments).
The particular claim we’ve all been referring to is the claim that vegans “tend to ignore basic science.” Let’s look at that. What does it mean to ignore something? What evidence do you have that they’ve ignored it? Because markLabouff says they have? You’re lacking substantiation. And what is basic science? Again, marklabouff’s basic science? It seems the science of nutritionists would be the more important, information which is clearly absent. Without substantiation for this statement, we see nothing but a statement that is meant to distract us from the topic (a Red Herring). It’s an appeal to humor at the expense of any vegans we may have in the forum.
I should have said all of that earlier, but I was trying to mediate gently. Now, I see that was a mistake. In the futre I ask everyone be more careful with their claims. If participants want to make generalized claims about a group of people, they should be prepared to have hefty substantiation. Otherwise, it’s just offensive, and Socrates Cafe isn’t the place for it.
Great post, and very well written. I am the most politically incorrect person I know, so anybody who writes a piece like yours, which rationalizes the use of animals for their purposes is okay by me. In Genesis, God put man over the animals, and as politically incorrect as it is to be a Christian now days, I stand by the text and say that the animals were put on the planet to feed, clothe, transport and in other ways facilitate the comfort of mankind. I have the most spoiled dogs ever, and I like to think that I own them, but in all honesty, which one of us is schlepping off to work every day to buy food for the other?
RYC: ~* I cannot tell you how hard I laughed at the comment you left in my blog! Just way to darn funny! Thank you, I needed that, especially since my entry today was so misunderstood earlier this morning! Funny guy! Thanks again for the laughter interjected into my day!! Hope today puts someone in your path who can give you the opportunity to laugh as you gifted me!
~Namaste, T.L.
Post Script ~ You forgot Boobahs… now THOSE creep me out!