I am here on a coolish winter day. I have been setting in front of a roaring fire [in the fireplace; the fire is in the fireplace, not me] eating Stilton and Shropshire with fresh baked bread and a nice Claret [yes I know you should have Port with Stilton]. I look through my forests and over my ponds and I see no houses. They are too far away. Is this right for someone from a working class family?

I dont question the beliefs of the animal rights activists. Human rights for chimps and pygmy chimps? Are things just too good for too many people? Does all of this activity mean that a lot of people just have too little to worry about?

A question to consider; not an opinion.

Best wishes,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), February 12, 2000

Answers

Z,

I wondered when the description of your bucolic digs would get around to animal rights, but I tend to agree. When one can't pay their bills, their main energy is spent tyring to do so and to feed their family. When one has lots of surplus cash and time some people apparently need something else to worry about, whether real or imagined.

Also reminds me of something from Steinbeck, (don't remember the book, but it was good) when he said (paraphrased) "a rich woman gets all sorts of aches and pains that need medical attention, but a poor woman can't be dropped with a meat-axe."

Probably the same sort of thing.

Waxing poetic and probably "sexist" on a Saturday,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 12, 2000.

Correction:

I meant to say that I dont question the sincerity of the belief of the activists. That should make more sense. Sorry.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), February 12, 2000.

Oh please. I don't have a surplus of cash lying around, nor do I NEED anything more to worry about. But I still care about the earth, and its many inhabitants, and hope for the end of suffering and torture of any kind. Be it human or any other species. If the thought of a tortured lab animal doesn't bother you, you have probably buried your conscience so far, you can't hear the faintest stir of it. It's funny, "animal rights" has become sort of a dirty word to many people. I can't understand why some are so adamantly opposed to the whole concept. It really saddens me.

-- cin (cinlooo@aol.com), February 12, 2000.

I feel the word, "priorities" might apply. Then there is the good old standby, "reality check".

My father made twice as much money as a small animal vet and *always* preferred large animl vet medicine. He simply disliked small animal owners. Those who would leave their children in day cares so they could work to pay for Fido's teeth to be cleaned and Fifi's fur fluff. Very warped. Terribly confused individuls who meant well and thankfully put my brother through college.

Abortion is legal and you can be thrown in jail for stomping on a rat. Very warped society. Terribly confused. I just can't wait for them to vote again.

-shudder-

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), February 12, 2000.

I come from a family that goes hunting and fishing. I am not a vegetarian. I understand that animals eat other animals. Although I may have a problem with what people choose to eat (for example, cats, dogs and horses) I understand the basic need to kill to eat. However, I believe that all animals should be transported and killed in as humane a way as possible. I do not believe that animals should be killed for their fur. Not dog, cats, mink, fox, wolf or other fur bearing animals. There is no justification for this since there are other ways to keep you warm. Vaniety on the part of the wearer is no reason for another to die.

PS I was just in the CNN site and the articles were all scrambled and unreadable.

-- dawn (bluesky@escape.ca), February 12, 2000.

No, I think it is a glitch in the mass attitude caused by the millenium bug. WATCH IT!!!!

-- Raz (whine2K@always.fukt), February 13, 2000.

Whatever it is the makes humans more special and more deserving of "rights" than, say, a lump of coal...well, other animals half at least half as much of it.

-- number six (#!@#!.com), February 13, 2000.

As a farmer Ihave come to the conclusion that the upsurge in animal rights and vegetarianism is a result the way we have industrialized the raising of animals for meat. The corporate model for raising beef, chicken, pork, etc has reduced the animal to a production unit.

The consumer understands that there is something inherantly wrong with this. So they make a stand. But their stand, as most are, is more of a statement against something, than a position fully thought out. They are against raising and eating chickens, but have no such problem with say, eating potatoes. When the vegetarian's potatoes are being harvested, billions of soil microbes are killed with every step taken on the soil, or tractor wheel driven on it. Not to mention earth worms.

So the fact is most vegetarians and animal rights people are engaged in a form of selective choice on what species it is acceptable to kill in order to be able to eat. Soil microbes and worms are not too cute, the movie people don't try and personify them.

After saying this, I do believe that the movement is a healthy one, albeit poorly thought out. Reality is somewhere in the middle of the two camps.They do force us to examine the status quo, which is always required. But in the end, their position shows a way of thinking as far removed from the natural order of things as the industrial animal production method.

-- gary elliott (gelliott@real.on.ca), February 13, 2000.

Isn't there a way to conclude that inflicting needless pain on animals is wrong without giving them a Bill of Rights? I mean, where would you draw the line? We'd end up having to go to court before we could clean our wounds!

(And to boot, some of them bacteria are actually kinda cute when viewed up close...)...:)

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 13, 2000.

Gary, well said. Thank you

-- cin (cinlooo@aol.com), February 13, 2000.

Neurotic, spoiled, too much time on their hands -- and that's just the pets. (Or should I say "animal companions"?)

Most of these "animal rights" activists and vegetarians are obviously "mentally challenged" in one way or another. Pitiful, if not laughable.

-- A (A@AisA.com), February 13, 2000.

Mentally Challenged?! Hahahaha. I prefer to think that some of us are a bit more evolved than others (others=YOU!) You know..they say that meat-eaters are more hostile than not. I'm tending to believe it.

-- ok bud (yea right@whateveryousay.com), February 14, 2000.

Hey folks, look around. Homo sapiens are the only species that destroy their own environment. How intelligent is that?? The basic human arrogance I am seeing here that we are "superior" is such a pathetic joke. Have you ever watched other species care for their young? They frequently surpass our abilities. They don't typically put them in a trash can, then go back to dance at the prom. Humans are inherently destructive. We are a FLUKE, a bad experiment gone awry. We do not "own" animals, as we don't "own" our children. We don't own the earth. We are just a link in the chain. The weakest one, at that. The lack of intelligence, vision and compassion in my own species embarrasses and depresses me to no end. We are not at the TOP of the food chain. Critters exist to whom I am food, and as well, I consume some creatures, with an appreciative prayer and a recognition that what I'm doing may be cruel. But I walk the earth with respect for all, in my fight for survival. Only humans are capable of malice. Idiot joesixpack- sportsaddicted-couchpotatoes WILL have to face the jury on the other side. Intent is everything.

-- Miss Anthrope (look@thebig.picture), February 15, 2000.