http://articles.latimes.com/1999/dec/17/local/me-44868
this
The position you described is Animal WELFARE, NOT Animal RIGHTS. There is a HUGE difference. The basic gist of the Animal Rights movement is that animals are "equal" to us in every way, and therefore it is morally wrong for us to use them in any way, or own them for any purpose. On the darker side, they are driven by a belief that animals are actually better off dead than being owned by humans, but only they(the AR activists)have the "right" to end an animal's life, out of mercy, of course, to prevent the possibility that the animal MIGHT be abused by humans somewhere down the road. The AR people know that if they just come out and try to ban ALL animal ownership at once, they aren't going to get very far, but if they go after certain types of animals at a time, they can eliminate ownership of those types via attrition if not through outright bans. The easiest way to accomplish this is to rely on the very powerful emotion of FEAR. Create an image of certain animals and the people who own them that the majority of the public will find threatening, and the public will appeal to the lawmakers to "save" them from this menace. They also rely on the "Divide and Conquer" concept-driving wedges between animal owners ourselves, creating this notion that "MY animals are OK, but YOURS are dangerous and have to go". When people start to believe that they themselves are immune or protected along with their animals from the bans, etc., and that it's "the other people" who are the problem, they strengthen the AR movement considerably, whether or not they consider themselves supporters.
Some excelent points here the distinction between animal welfare and animal rights is something i havnt been able to articulate nearly as well as you did here. The scenario you posted is clearly fiction but it does an excelent job of highlighting the two different ways of thinking. The sad thing is i think the majority of people who support the humane society and consider themselves animal rights proponents are really animal welfare proponents and don't realize who they are supporting. I personally support animal welfare very strongly, is their an organization out there that works to fight for animal welfare without supporting "animal rights" in the sense that you have defined it?
Sadly, no, not nationally, anyway. Nearly every single Animal Welfare group has been "hijacked" by the Animal Rights movement, and we are gradually seeing them "turn". The ASPCA long supported people's rights to breed dogs and other pets responsibly and own the pet of their choice, but now they are more and more against breeding animals, and absolutely against owning any sort of "exotic" animal, such as snakes or tarantulas. My best advice is to research your local animal protection groups/shelters, see what their positions are are, and donate to the ones that you find acceptable. They can sure use it, since they don't receive a penny from the national groups. If you don't want to make monetary donations, most are happy with gifts of things like pet food, towels, paper towels, bleach, animal toys, etc.
References? I'd love to see the study/article. I mean-everyone on hear knows that their pets help them relax etc. but it is neat to see a study on something other than cats/dogs.
Yup. Some of the story seems funny (not in the Har Har way either).
That is one of the most true things i have heard about AP in awhile lol.Off topic Zerg rush wins;P