tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post4914619129388778445..comments2024-02-03T06:58:02.859-04:00Comments on My Face Is On Fire: Anything but SentienceUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-77970484884602404022010-11-09T15:39:09.085-04:002010-11-09T15:39:09.085-04:00Thanks for all of your thoughtful comments. I'...Thanks for all of your thoughtful comments. I'm sorry that I haven't had time to weigh in myself, but I hope to do so over the next day or two. :-)Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15800153451645970774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-6925114714275960192010-11-08T19:20:10.079-04:002010-11-08T19:20:10.079-04:00Excellent post,
I do like blogs where it's cl...Excellent post,<br /><br />I do like blogs where it's clear that a real understanding of the issue is present rather than the dreary regurgitation of old news that most often occurs. Nice work.<br /><br />To touch on your point about women's rights and animal's rights I thought it might amuse you to look at some of Peter Singer's work (although you've probably already read it right?!).<br /><br />In a highly readable article Singer worte about liberation movements, which you can read at http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.pdf, he wrote:<br /><br />“In the past the idea of “The Rights of Animals” … has been used to parody the case for women’s rights. When Mary Wollstonecraft, a forerunner of later feminists, published her Vindication of the Rights of Women in 1792, her ideas were widely regarded as absurd, and they were satirized in an anonymous publication entitled A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes. …[which] tried to refute Wollstonecraft’s reasonings by showing that … If sound when applied to women, why should the arguments not be applied to dogs, cats, and horses? They seemed to hold equally well for these “brutes”; yet to hold that brutes had rights was manifestly absurd; therefore the reasoning by which this conclusion had been reached must be unsound, and if unsound when applied to brutes, it must also be unsound when applied to women, since the very same arguments had been used in each case.”<br /><br />Anyone daring to concur with that apparent ‘logic’ these days would face stiff opposition. Clearly the argument does function logically if we assume that the end proposition (that animals have no intrinsic rights) is true. So you could say (go on, I dare you!) that if you’re not a vegetarian or vegan then you fundamentally disagree with the equality (whilst maintaining the differences, of course) of men and women, and that essentially women have no rights.<br /><br />Fun logic. I'd like to see Singer and Hahn Niman have a sophisticated argument. Would get a little messy I think... <br /><br />Leigh<br />www.thetastyvegan.comThe Tasty Veganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00024253933576792496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-53411642233907817262010-11-08T09:17:23.675-04:002010-11-08T09:17:23.675-04:00You write.."So, just because something has co...You write.."So, just because something has come to be a certain way and has been a certain way for a long time, it's flawed to question that this has been so?" as a summation of a major point in the argument Ms. Hahn Niman presented. Then you go on to point out the "traditional" role assigned to women in many cultures and that based on that role she wouldn't have the standing to argue at all. <br /><br />Excellent.<br /><br />I generally don't pay much attention to "arguments". Every rotten disgusting practice that humans have ever engaged in has had defenders (those who behaved disgustingly) and so far as I know arguing has had little impact on their behavior or their thinking....but I sometimes enjoy seeing the absurdities of a self-serving fallacious position exposed.<br /><br />Thanksveganelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05188156008589356984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-42980548049296587392010-11-07T23:46:47.024-04:002010-11-07T23:46:47.024-04:00Well-articulated, as usual. Niman also felt the ne...Well-articulated, as usual. Niman also felt the need to mention that the panel with Howard Lyman was attended by many vegans who sided with him. That's irrelevant; it's clear facts and figures aren't what she's all about, either.Julie Varughesehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15570142736305568051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-8901329338422316872010-11-07T05:37:32.880-04:002010-11-07T05:37:32.880-04:00hi u have good interestshi u have good interestsSowmya Rame Gowdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15628172345160396004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-40311880120638586992010-11-04T18:53:45.394-03:002010-11-04T18:53:45.394-03:00Exceptional blog post. Thank you. I commented on t...Exceptional blog post. Thank you. I commented on that preposterous article earlier, and my thoughts were:<br /><br />"Of course, this blog post ignores the most fundamental part of the argument it's seeking to dispute, which is that, in spite of the fact that we humans tend to decide what's food and what's not based on culture and tradition, and in spite of of how uniquely emotional our attachment to dogs is, there is very little moral difference between eating a dog and eating a pig -- at least insofar as the suffering cause goes. <br /><br />Dogs and pigs have similar capacities for pleasure and pain; of course we may preference our connection to one animal over our connection to the other, but that doesn't mean that we aren't causing similar kinds of harm when we kill a pig instead of a dog. We are causing similar pain and suffering, and it is a similar ethical choice. That we've decided to domesticate dogs and not pigs isn't the point; the point is that it's an equal wrong (if indeed you believe that causing the needless suffering of a sentient being is wrong). To say that our arbitrary decisions about which animals are dear to us and which aren't justifies our killing habits is akin to saying that nothing is immoral, so long as it fits within our stated preferences. <br /><br />And of course we choose what to eat and what not to eat based on culture, climate, trend, and passing fancy. But the issue here is not that we make these choices, but rather how justifiable those choices are."<br /><br />Excited to find your blog!Genahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12442023507067957726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-20571587812374539362010-11-04T17:05:45.659-03:002010-11-04T17:05:45.659-03:00If anyone on the "animals are just meat for m...If anyone on the "animals are just meat for my belly" side of the equation were to come up with an ACTUAL reason for eating animals, then I would be really surprised. Stunned, even. Thanks for another well-worded article, Mylene!Allysiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16097190577011498780noreply@blogger.com