From: Michael Lorrey (retroman@together.net)
Date: Wed Aug 05 1998 - 11:07:09 MDT
Wesley R. Schwein wrote:
> Whether or not female members outnumber males is immaterial & not the
> source of my hasty response. In fact I have no doubt that there are more
> women involved in animal rights, as that jives with my own experiences.
> What I began to object to is the causation you're assigning:
> "The point is that the 'Cute' factor is what sells animal rightism and
> vegetarianism (which is why many more women than men are one or the
> other)," that is, women are spinelessly vulnerable to cuteness, turning off
> any critical thinking capacity at the sight of a fuzzy nose in a cage &
> that there's no other explanation for their activism.
While one might automatically think that I made an unfounded leap to assume
that women are more likely to 'spinelessly vulnerable' to cuteness, I think
that the assumption that one has to be 'spinelessly vulnerable' to cuteness to
allow cuteness to become a factor influencing one's empathic response to others
is sexist in and of itself. The use of the term 'spinelessly vulnerable'
automatically implies that it is inferior because it does not seem masculine.
Just as you are accusing me of making an unfounded leap to a conclusion, you
are making an equally false jump to the conclusion that one has to be
'spinelessly vulnerable' to appreciate cuteness.
I make no sexist judgement about an individual's empathic response outside of
the claims of feminists that women are in fact more empathic, I just beleive
that since a) there is absolutely no proof or evidence of sentience amongst any
animals besides humans (except perhaps dolphins and some of the great apes) b)
humans are the top predators in all land ecosystems and have been for thousands
of years (and have been tops in all water ecosystems for at least the last
thousand) c) it has been proven that lack of wild herd management policies
which include hunting and harvesting at calculated levels causes in the long
run far greater pain and suffering for more animals than is experienced under a
hunting policy, that an individuals empathic response to a cute and fuzzy bunny
is not a rational basis for an individuals vegetarian or animal rights beleifs,
that if an individual wants to reduce pain and suffering amongst animals then
they should support hunting policies.
A human being's evolved empathic response is meant for use in interpersonal
relations between other human beings, however some stunted individuals who are
not able to full fill their affection craving or co-dependencies with other
humans tend to use animals as surrogates. This is not a behavior which has a
positive evolutionary advantage for the individual.
Additionally, the attitude of animal rightists that domesticated farm animals
are not 'natural' is scientifically baseless, since such animals have been
evolved by their symbiosis with humans over several thousand years into the
animals they are today, just as much as ants have domesticated other insects
which they use to produce food for the ant larvae in the nest. Animal rightists
exhibit the major failing that most true environmentalists accuse mainstream
humans of: separating humanity from 'nature'. The human species is as much a
part of nature as any other species, and everything it does is as much a part
of natural evolution as any other species. Why is it that dams built by beavers
are 'natural', while dams built by man are 'artificial'? Why are termite hills
and bee hives 'natural' arcologies, while apartment buildings and cities are
'artificial'? Why are ant's domesticated insects 'natural' while cows are not?
Such paradoxes expose the lie of animal rightists.
>
>
> Do you deny this implication, or do you have another explanation? I have
> little more to say on this; I'm only surprised the rest of the list let you
> get this one by.
People tend to lose their irrational knee-jerk PC responses once they've
subscribed to the list long enough.
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:25 MST