EXAMINING:"Animal-rights terrorists take away our right to life and liberty."
Thursday, October 29, 2009 2:10 PM
"Brennan Browne" <endspeciescide@...
You appear to find absolutely no moral or ethical conflict in setting a double standard for yourself. Ad hominem refers to those making their arguments based on emotion, bias and their own special interests, in lieu of facts or reason. You flippantly apply this term as an excuse not to reply to those who rightfully challenge you regarding your own biased, irrational thinking; diatribes full of wild, erroneous accusations targeting the AR movement as your whipping boy. It's apparent that ad hominem attacks are your specialty.
The following are examples of blatantly false, flawed and/or hysterical rhetoric excerpted from your commentary of April 30th, 2009, entitled: "Animal-rights terrorists take away our right to life and liberty." I have commented after each of your remarks. I would like to begin with the title of your piece: "Animal-rights terrorists take away our right to life and liberty."
Specifically, what rights and liberties are you being denied, Mr. Locke? The right to torture with impunity? The right not to be publicly 'outed' for sadistic crimes against sentient beings? The right to invent ever-more-torturous, worthless, ridiculous, repetitive experiments to justify the multi-billion dollar taxpayer subsidies which afford your ilk luxurious lifestyles? Don't these 'rights' and 'liberties' exist in your mind based solely on a highly subjective, preconceived notion of what you THINK it means to be a human being? Isn't using brute force against the defenseless the worst kind of inexcusable, mindless bias?
You state: ..."man's rights do not depend on his ability to feel pain; they depend on his ability to think."
In reality, Mr. Locke, man's "rights" depend on neither. Man seizes his "status" by force, by subjugation, by the enslavement of species that are either physically less powerful than himself, or those whose intellectual capabilities are no less than his own, but which operate on radically different criteria.
If you are up to proving your argument that man's ability to 'think' sets him apart, then by all means, level the playing field; take to the farthest reaches of a remote forest with nothing more than your human brain for survival -- no food, clothing, shelter, tools -- let's see how well you fare against the non-humans you claim to be so superior to. In all likelihood you will die; not because you suddenly reverted to abject stupidity, but because you have been thrust into a foreign world; one which does not consider, nor care about your speciesist notion of human superiority. The skills you have acquired as a professor, would be next to worthless in a situation where common sense and practical knowledge outweigh book learning. Under the right set of circumstances, there is no such thing as a 'superior' species -- nor an inferior one. It comes down to non-humans simply being forced to adapt to the constraints of man's world -- one that puts non-human
intellectual capabilities and complex, unique personalities at a complete disadvantage. There's an old adage: if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does the noise still exist? Well, if highly functioning, intelligent species exist, but go completely unrecognized by man, are they still highly intelligent? Or, put another way, if man is too blind, arrogant and self-centered to see the incredible network of non-human intelligence that surrounds him, and in innumerable ways rivals his own, who then, is really the dullard species?
Your words: "There is only one fundamental right: a man's right to his own life."
Please explain using solid facts [I'm assuming since you are attempting to make a secular case and not a religious one that you will NOT fall back on the "dominion" argument] why you feel you have a "right" to your own life as a human being, while denying the same right to life and liberty for non-humans. How is your attitude any different from those who promote racism, sexism, antisemitism, fascism or any number of "isms" which perpetuate hatred, violence and an unjust targeting of innocent groups/individuals, based on nothing more than a theoretical belief that you are superior?
You state: "Rights are ethical principles applicable only to beings capable of reason and choice."
Really, Mr. Locke? This remark seems to suggest that the severely retarded; those with debilitating mental illnesses such a schizophrenia; the comatose; those with partial brain function; victims of Alzheimer's and other types of dementia should all have their rights unceremoniously yanked and be considered 100% expendable under your criteria, because they are unable to "reason" or make choices for themselves. It appears that those judged worthy of any rights at all, in the end, will be identical to yourself.
"...they [researchers] must be more firm in opposing the vicious inversion of morality inherent in the notion of animal "rights,"
Mr. Locke, it is evident you suffer from a deep-seated hatred of non-humans. You must be reminded that YOU,TOO are an animal, no matter how repulsive that fact may be to you. Please explain in depth, without baseless editorializing, why the notion of non-human beings having their own inherent 'right to exist'; the 'right not to be brutalized' by man; the right to live their lives completely apart and for themselves, away from man's exploitation, should NOT be lawfully, morally and ethically recognized as basic.
"The terrorists are unmoved by the indisputable fact that animal research saves human lives."
Collectively, throughout the span of the millions of experiments plied on billions of animals over the course of 200+ years; there is overwhelming proof that vivisection and animal testing are abysmal failures in predicting or furthering positive results in human subjects. On the contrary, the public, to this day, is denied access to the behemoth pile of 'scientific' records which indisputably point to the neverending deaths and permanent disabilities, directly resulting from this antiquated and lethal mode of discovery.
"The animal "rights" movement is not about the humane treatment of animals. Its goal is the animalistic treatment of human beings... "As someone who has debated them for years on college campuses and in the media, I know firsthand that the whole movement is typically based on a single - invalid - syllogism; namely, men feel pain and have rights; animals feel pain; therefore, animals have rights."
Mr. Locke, to clarify your position: you believe the goal of the AR movement is to treat human beings as viciously, contemptibly and reprehensibly as you treat non-humans. You have elevated hypocrisy and irony to new heights. This is yet another outrageous example of your ad hominem hysteria. You have chosen to interject your own personal, warped opinions in lieu of the facts.
Are your debates with animal rights activists real or imaginary? Are they composed of one-sided rants to which no one can reply because there is no other party involved? Because for someone who claims to have been debating animal rights activists for years, I have two observations:
First, you display an embarrassingly, pathetic, ignorance regarding the Animal Rights Movement, in general. You appear to have no knowledge or basic understanding, whatsoever, of its various factions or of its legitimate, ultimate goals. What background knowledge, if any, do you possess regarding animal welfare vs abolition issues? -- incrementalism vs new welfarism? You call yourself an "expert" yet, you have already proven that you cannot state with any semblance of correctness, the motivation and ultimate goals behind the AR Movement, without drawing wildly erroneous conclusions and lumping the millions of individuals involved, and their own personal reasons for participating, into one convenient, and thoroughly bogus pile, which paints every AR activist as a raving lunatic seeking world domination. You call this debating. I call it a bloody hatchet job.
Secondly, you and other vivisectionist advocates have repeatedly chosen to shield and insulate yourself from any real questioning/criticism by refusing to debate those who have educated, opposing views. You have hidden behind a multitude of excuses and have stooped to posting full page ads and billboards in an attempt to manipulate public opinion by reverting to sheer propaganda.
It's obvious that you have no interest in exploring the truth, relevance or validity of the Animal Rights Movement as a vitally important social justice statement. It's much easier to smear, trash, denigrate and discredit it based on unenlightened,
misconceptions and prejudices. You deserve an F for your failure to thoroughly research and educate yourself regarding all aspects of animal rights' issues. And for displaying a total lack of ethics in using animal rights to further your own personal, political and financial agendas.
"The animal "rights" terrorists are like the Unabomber or the World Trade Center terrorists or Oklahoma City bombers. They are not idealists seeking justice, but nihilists seeking destruction for the sake of destruction. They do not want to uplift mankind, to help him progress from the swamp to the stars. They want mankind's destruction; they want him not just to stay in the swamp but to disappear into its muck."
Mr. Locke, comparing non-violent AR activists, law-abiding or not, to psychopathic killers, is grotesque, unwarranted and proves you have already sunk well below the muck. What would happen, if tomorrow, I publicly announced that every vivisectionist in the land was a depraved, sexual pervert? How long before I would be inundated with lawsuits claiming slander and defamation? Yet, the "terrorist" label, now being wielded with as much care as a bloody knife in the hands of a fanatic, is the weapon of choice used by the political, judicial and corporate fascists bent on destroying entire legitimate, peace-affirming social justice movements.
I would be careful in the future when cavalierly using the word "terrorist" to define people/groups who at worst, MAY be guilty of vandalism. If innocent individuals who are being maliciously defamed should choose to seek legal action, the proof would be upon YOU to provide solid evidence which places them on par with, and in the same category as, the mass murderers you refer to in your commentary. An impossibility, of course, since the only blood shed has been that of non-humans at the hands of those hypocritically calling the rest of us terrorists.
Finally, it is my own personal opinion that those who choose careers in vivisection do so because they are mentally ill and vivisection affords them the best of all worlds. They attain wealth by torturing sentient beings and are lauded as important and respectable for performing monstrous acts, which satisfy the most base, evil aspects of themselves. Where else, outside of this "scientific" cesspool, could an individual do this with impunity and not go immediately to jail for animal cruelty?
Looking forward to your reply.
The concept of 'animal rights' values the simple premise that ALL living creatures have a "right" to be allowed to live their lives without victimization--free from brutality. It is a right that EVERY being strives for.
Animal Rights--Rational, not Radical.
Man IS superior to every other being...in his ability to excuse away those parts of himself too vile for self-examination.