animal "rights" zone ?

[Tina Cubberley]

this is to let all members know i hav desided to leave ARzone - an why .

firstly ,i am completly disgusted by some of the views expresed on this site,an the way other members hav failed to question them. society in general is so rife with prejudise against nonhumans an arrogant ideas about human superiority ,but it is shocking an demoralising to find such views expressed hear of all places . i want no part of a forum wher people defend welfarist half measures an support the exploitation an property status of nonhumans in any way . this is a betrayal of evrything the animal liberation mevement stands for - an if animal rights zone fails to condemn ignorant speciesism lik this then it needs to change its name .

secondly ,i am also disgusted by the lack of support an respect shown for roger yates - he has basicaly had all his briliant hard work hear thrown back in his face . ther are few people (an certainly none on this site ) who understand what this movement needs as wel as he does,or who hav worked so tirelesly for the animals .

in conclusion ,id lik to join him in disasociating myself from the inacurately named animal rights zone ,wher the ideals of veganism an liberation for all sentient beings are undermined by misguided human supremasists who actualy advocate animal use . 

[Tim Gier]

So basically, if a person doesn't accept your particular views of what the animal rights movement is then they don't even deserve to call themselves advocates for the interests of other animals.  Interesting that an authoritative "my way or the highway" view would be espoused by one who calls herself an anarchist.  Take care Tina; I for one will not miss your amusingly confused ramblings.

[Tim Gier]

And since it seems to continually escape you Tina, please allow me to point out what should be transparently obvious: Nonhuman animals haven't got any rights yet.  That's why there is an animal rights movement.  If nonhumans had rights that were recognized and protected we could all hang up our leaflets, protest signs and balaclavas and go home.

[Carolyn Bailey]

See, the thing about ARZone is that you are welcome to be "completly disgusted", and still have your opinion heard and your right to express it respected. 

There lies the problem for some people though, doesn't it?

The comments from Tina, above, are remarkably similar to the comments ARZone have heard in the past when the Francionists have attempted to stifle rational discourse in ARZone. Unfortunately, this is something that ARZone has come to expect due to our mission of open, civil discussion, without censorship. 

ARZone has always believed that if people disagree with us and think that they have better solutions to the problems we face, then it is up to them to present and defend their views.

Given that we don't censor any comments, it's the perfect place to do so, and those who choose to ignore that opportunity, have no right to complain about the discussions which are taking place by those who embrace civil discourse.

If we refuse to ask ourselves and others difficult and uncomfortable questions, we need to ask ourselves why.  

[Tim Gier]

Let's try one more thought experiment, shall we? (I know you don't like these Tina, I guess because they involve, you know, thinking.) 

Suppose that some lethal pathogen just happened to kill every living human being on the planet tomorrow.  Given that nonhuman animals are moral patients -- that is to say that they haven't any capacity to act either morally or immorally -- then who would be alive to even conceive of the idea of rights at all??  No one would be. Rights are a construct of rational minds that are capable of abstract thought about matters of right and wrong.  Nonhuman animals are not capable of such thought and therefore, in the absence of human minds talk of rights is meaningless.  Pretending that other animals have some mystical claims on the rest of the universe simply by virtue of their being alive is more of a religious idea than a rational one.

[red dog]

If Roger has really left, that is a big loss for ARZone. He's done great work here and I can't see the site being half as good without him. I'm also really disappointed to see the disrespectful tone that's crept into certain discussions lately, including the recent honey discussion. It wasn't necessary to call Roger confused, and it isn't necessary to suggest Tina has no interest in thinking.

Until now I thought ARZone was doing a good job of encouraging critical thought while at the same time respecting the real live animals who are the subject of our discussions--not abstractions whose experiences we should feel free to trivialize because we're bored. I didn't always agree with Roger, but I can understand why he reacted the way he did to the honey discussion. What if someone in your family was attacked, and some guy on a message board suggested your family member was an inferior life form who acted on instinct and couldn't make choices? And that therefore the attack was nothing to get upset about?

[Tim Gier]

I apologize if you think my tone disrespectful, but of course, I thought Roger's tone was as well.  In any case, pointing out that a person's argument is confused isn't necessarily disrespectful - many arguments actually are confused (and some people do appear to prefer to just repeat the same talking points ad nauseum without showing any evidence of thinking at all about the counterarguments on offer).  

I suppose that if Roger takes it that bees are part of his family then that makes his emotional reaction to what I've written understandable, but it doesn't do much to make it more reasonable.

I love how you continue to impart motives to me based on nothing at all (I'm assuming you're talking about me because I am the one who wrote about "abstractions"). You think that I write because I am bored, which is to say that you don't think that I am honestly trying to get to the heart of what are extremely complex issues.  Whatever.

[Tim Gier]

Also, if it really is true that ARZone will not be half as good without Roger as it was with him (and I think it is a loss that Roger has chosen to leave ARZone) then he ought to have stayed.  As Roger often said himself, if people disagree with viewpoints expressed in ARZone, then ARZone is the place to voice those disagreements.  One can't make improvements in a community that one ignores.

[Carolyn Bailey]

Hi red dog,

The fact that Roger has decided to leave ARZone dosn't change the fact that ARZone is a community which is made up of it's almost 3000 members. ARZone is far bigger, and more important than any one person. 

Whilst ARZone continues to evolve, and whilst the ARZone admins continue to have other commitments, there will inevitably continue to be changes to the admin staff. These changes are not significant to ARZone as a general matter, and have, in the past, and will continue to, make little difference to the overall running of ARZone. It is always a little sad when one of the admins decides to move on, but I don't think ARZone was significantly impacted when Jamie Rivet moved on, nor was it a great loss when Dan Cudahy moved on. We have had many such changes in the ARZone admin team, and will continue to do so. 

ARZone will continue to encourage rational, respectful and civil discourse. Due to our committment not to censor our members, discussion may occassionally become disrespectful, as Roger's, Tina's and Tim's comments did on the honey thread recently. This also happened a while back when a young man posted a video of his work and found himself in the middle of a very disrespectful PeTA debate. You didn't complain then though, was that because it was PeTA-bashing and disrespect was OK that time? 

I am the person who posted the honey discussion in ARZone, and I would do so again, because, as you state, ARZone takes very seriously our job of "encouraging critical thought while at the same time respecting the real live animals who are the subject of our discussions".

It's unfortunate that, due to the passion many of us feel for the work we are doing, there will always be disagreements and tension amongst those of us who are doing it. However, I believe that the work is more important than any one person, and will continue to do the best I can to advocate for the other individuals whom I feel can benefit from my advocacy. Perhaps that's what we should all focus on? 

red dog said:

If Roger has really left, that is a big loss for ARZone. He's done great work here and I can't see the site being half as good without him. I'm also really disappointed to see the disrespectful tone that's crept into certain discussions lately, including the recent honey discussion. It wasn't necessary to call Roger confused, and it isn't necessary to suggest Tina has no interest in thinking.

Until now I thought ARZone was doing a good job of encouraging critical thought while at the same time respecting the real live animals who are the subject of our discussions--not abstractions whose experiences we should feel free to trivialize because we're bored. I didn't always agree with Roger, but I can understand why he reacted the way he did to the honey discussion. What if someone in your family was attacked, and some guy on a message board suggested your family member was an inferior life form who acted on instinct and couldn't make choices? And that therefore the attack was nothing to get upset about?

[Frank Panetta]

I don't know if there is a universally accepted definition of veganism, but in my thinking, I have absolutely no right to in anyway exploit another sentient being.   

[Tina Cubberley]

hi red dog ,

thanx for your support an comments hear -i quite agree,rogers absense wil be a huge loss to arzone .but i completly support an understand his desision to leave this site -it is simply unaceptable to work alongside those who defend exploitation in any way. the fact that tim giers speciesist attitude to other animals is defended at all hear angers me - an i am also very disapointed in the lack of support for roger shown by those who worked with him . his activism ,an the imense amount of time an effort he has given to making this site what it is (or rather was) deservs more respect .

red dog said:

If Roger has really left, that is a big loss for ARZone. He's done great work here and I can't see the site being half as good without him. I'm also really disappointed to see the disrespectful tone that's crept into certain discussions lately, including the recent honey discussion. It wasn't necessary to call Roger confused, and it isn't necessary to suggest Tina has no interest in thinking.

Until now I thought ARZone was doing a good job of encouraging critical thought while at the same time respecting the real live animals who are the subject of our discussions--not abstractions whose experiences we should feel free to trivialize because we're bored. I didn't always agree with Roger, but I can understand why he reacted the way he did to the honey discussion. What if someone in your family was attacked, and some guy on a message board suggested your family member was an inferior life form who acted on instinct and couldn't make choices? And that therefore the attack was nothing to get upset about?

[Tina Cubberley]

tim

for a start ,you clearly havnt got the remoted idea of the principles of anarchism -hense your remark that my defense of the vegan position is in conflict with them. allow me to enliten you. anarchism is about equality an liberation from opression - it is NOT about toleranse  for those who support or defend an opressive system.the anarchists ideal is not chaos wher violense against the innocent is given free rein -it is a society based on respect for the rights of others,without state imposed hierarchy or prejudise.

i am surprised that you think an anarchist should stand by and let you defend the practise of taking another animals freedom ,or treating them as an object for our use,without comment .presumably if you were making racist or sexist remarks on this site,i would be expected to tolerate that too?

i hav absolutly zero toleranse of unethical choises ,an no compassion for or understanding of those who defend there freedom to use an abuse others - an i find this compltly consistant with an essential to anarchist principles .respect for individual autonomy does not include respecting anothers right to discriminate or promote violense against other .by promoting the consumption of animal products,this is what you are doing.i dont respect others right to speak in favor of human slavery or defend child abuse -so why would i respect anything you hav said hear ?

you suggest that bees can be kept as prisoners for human use,an seem to think this defense of slavery is not inconsistant with vegan values. as a vegan ,i find this disgusting. an i am doubly disgusted that you would expres such views hear, on a site suposedly dedicated to ending speciesism.

lastly , bees do hav rights -as all sentient beings do,simply  because they are sentient ,not because humans hav decided to "grant" them rights from a position of superiority .the fact that these rights are ignored an trampled on in this speciesist society proves nothing .

Tim Gier said:

And since it seems to continually escape you Tina, please allow me to point out what should be transparently obvious: Nonhuman animals haven't got any rights yet.  That's why there is an animal rights movement.  If nonhumans had rights that were recognized and protected we could all hang up our leaflets, protest signs and balaclavas and go home.

[Lisa V]

Tina, to really figure out if honey ... or anything else ... is genuinely exploitative or not (and what we should do if it is) requires us all to ask the kinds of questions Tim asked.

Do you eat organic vegetables? Because I notice a lot of vegans will jump all over someone else about honey or their choice of sugar while proudly proclaiming they themselves eat organic vegetables. Organic vegetables are, of course, grown using bone meal, blood meal, and ground up feathers, in addition to various manures. It's impossible to exist in this world without participating in harm. Impossible. So, at some point, we all (including you) have determined what level of harm we're willing to personally commit. It's better, in my view, to look those harms in the eye and be aware of what we're really doing. And chances are, we're all going to vary just slightly on how we see it.

I think this kind of bickering really hurts the vegan movement. The "health" vegans don't squabble like this ... and they have many more adherents than the ethical side of this coin. They're an eager audience who've already discovered they won't fall over dead without eating animals, which is half the battle. And we don't have a very friendly or welcoming message for them ... or for anyone.