Animal Rights and Abuse

That's an excellent question. I can't answer it definitively, but I can tell you where "the movement" seems to be heading based on present trends and conditions. (I use the quotes because I don't think what we have right now can necessarily be called a movement.)

Animal Rights activists and intellectuals have never been a homogenous group, but party lines are becoming more powerful and more divisive. There are two major schools right now: the abolitionists and the new welfarists. Abolitionists maintain that the animals as property paradigm must be, well, abolished. They argue for the personhood of all sentient beings and adopt the practice of veganism.

New welfarists on the other hand generally seek to improve the conditions of animals within the status quo, rather than transforming the status quo itself. You can find a mix of vegans, vegetarians, and meat-eaters in this group. The ASPCA and the Humane Society would fall into this category. You can find them here:

http://www.aspca.org/about-us/policy-positions/

and here:

http://www.hsus.org/about_us/statements/

"Happy Meat"--which seems to be an egregious oxymoron to me--evolved out of the NW platform. Happy Meat, in case you don't know, a market-driven half-justice in which animals are treated as humanely as possible before they're slaughtered. (Full disclosure: I'd fall into the Abolitionist category).

These two groups do not get along and there is little to no cooperation between them. So "Animal Rights" might be falling into a two-party system, which is inauspicious given the lack of success in ... other areas dominated by two parties.

Be that as it may, veganism, vegetarianism, and people generally concerned with what they implicitly support with their grocery store purchases are becoming a more mainstream phenomenon. This has both positive and negative implications. On the upside, more people are beginning to recognize the current conditions of animal life are horrible, and that these conditions are entirely produced by humans. On the downside, our consumer economy has found a way to make us feel better about exploiting animals by exploiting them a little less and calling it Happy Meat and other such minimal-sacrifice products available to us. In my opinion, and the opinion of those with many more credentials (see below), is an insidious palliative. It makes people who are genuinely concerned believe they are being progressive when they are actually still supporting an inherently and violently exploitative paradigm.

Okay, so obviously I have strong opinions here, and thank you for reading through them. I found some sources that you might be interested in looking into. On the abolitionist front, Gary Francione, a law professor at Rutgers, is the most prolific and probably the most influential. You can find his blog here:

http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/

It will give you a very clear idea of Abolitionism and where this school wants to see AR move. Bob Torres is another such writer. He's not as prolific as Francione, but he's earlier in his career. His blog is here:

http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/

Torres also hosts a radio show that can be found here:

http://veganfreakradio.com/

Both Torres and Francione are PhDs. AR is finding a niche in academic disciplines, although it isn't necessarily called "Animal Rights." There is now an academic journal dedicated entirely what is emerging as "Critical Animal Studies." It's called, not surprisingly, The Journal of Critical Animal Studies, and it's available to the public in fulltext here:

http://www.criticalanimalstudies.org/JCAS/index.htm

In addition to "Critical Animal Studies," "Post-Humanism" is a new academic focus that has evolved out of animal rights discourse. Both of these discourses tend to situate the idea of "species" as a cultural convention rather than a biological absolute. Which sounds odd, I know. Perhaps this can be more clearly articulated by saying that the classification of sentient beings for the purpose of attaching meanings and values to them is a cultural practice, not the result of biology.

Finally, a lot of AR intellectuals and activists are situating animal exploitation a component of an a larger exploitative system. (This is part of an academic trend in "intersectionalism," which in turn is being superseded by the suspiciously similar "assemblage" model of identity) Carol J. Adams' The Sexual Politics of Meat, for example, looks at the mutually reinforcing objectification of animals and women. You can find her book on Amazon here:

http://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Politics-SEXUAL-POLITICS-ANNIV/dp/B001TVHYP8/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255524739&sr=8-6

Finally, if you'd like a general primer on Animal Rights theory, the Animal Rights LIbrary has several lengthy excerpts from important writers from Montaigne to Tom Regan:

http://www.animal-rights-library.com/

So, in sum, as a movement, animal rights is evolving into two discrete schools of thought, while simultaneously branching out to include the exploitation of the human groups as part of the analysis of animal exploitation.

I'll be checking in periodically, so if you have any more questions, I'd be happy to help.

c

no,they can"t they are really not just reagulur spiders

Penguins eat krill, squids, and fishes. Food intake varies with the ammount and variety of food available from different areas, at different times of the year. They feed at sea and catch the prey with their bills and swallow it whole while swimming. <3

There is no variety of tick that can fly. Ticks wait in tall grass and shrubs, or sometimes in cracks and crevices in the ground, until able to attach to a passing host. Ticks do not jump or fly, and must be in physicl contact for the passing to a host to take place. Sometimes, however, ticks may drop from their perch and fall onto a host.

A lot about 4 children die everyday because of child abuse. Child abuse is a terrible thing.

Most of the states, except a few in the South have given up the controversial carnival game. The few states that haven't banned the game have included:

Texas, Mississippi, Arizona, Tennessee, Kentucky, Florida, Georgia, and few others.

The Indus River Valley is located in what is now India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran.

I think it depends on the product, my lip gloss (L.A. Colors Moisturizing Lipgloss) has a cruelty free sticker on it, but my eyeshadow (L.A. Colors 5 Colors Metallic Eyeshadow palette BES431 "Darling") Does not.

Brazilians citizens are obligated to vote in all elections as well as serve in the military. The military service is a 12 month obligation.

I think if he is registered like appaloosa (appaloosa association) then u can go onto the website and look him up

The percentage of animals would be 70 % to 80% of animals are killed for there fur.

Within the last ten years there has been a great deal of legislation passed targeting animal abuse. It has now become a very serious crime. A good example of this is the fall-out from the Mike Vic dog fighting scandal. It was taken incredibly seriously. This would not have been the case at all in the past.

Leatherback sea turtles are not extinct, but they are critically endangered. They are often caught in commercial nets. There are safety devices in many of these nets to allow sea turtles to escape, but leatherbacks are so huge, that the adults often cannot fit through the escape (known as a turtle excluder device).

Another problem is that they sometimes ingest garbage that resembles other foods. This can cause a fatal blockage.

Horse meat is eaten in a number of countries in Europe and Asia. The British newspaper The Daily Mail estimates that 100,000 horses are transported annually into and around the European Union for consumption.

Horse meat is considered a taboo food in many English-speaking countries (including the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, and others), in Brazil, in India, as well as among the Romani people and under Jewish dietary laws. In countries and cultures where horses are commonly regarded as companion animals, the idea of consuming horse meat may be particularly repugnant.

Not having your pet vaccinated is neglect. This is when you do not take care of something or someone for whom you are responsible. Pets cannot prevent illness by themselves; they cannot make medicine or heal themselves if they become seriously ill. Pet vaccinations prevent most serious illnesses and keep them from spreading to others.

In some ways it is. You should take your pet to the vet once a year at least. If you aren't able to do that, then don't get a pet. Going to the vet helps your animal and animals around him/Hesperus You don't want you pet making other pets sick, or have your pet being sick.

It is a little bit -if you don't, your animal will get sick and can possibly die. If you don't want your furry little companion to have that illness, then go to the vet every year at least.

I believe so. If the animal gets sick of something that could have been prevented, it is your fault because he/she was not protected. Vaccination is like your flu shot.

It's not abuse because in the wild they don't get vaccinated and most of them are just fine. I don't vaccinate my cat and she's just fine too. When she gets sick we give her medicine. and she rarely gets sick. she is an inside cat though. but if your planning on taking your pets outside then it's best to vaccinate them I vaccinate my dogs because they go outside.

Neglect is a form of abuse here in the UK.

I am a big fan of the animal human society. I am not going to get mad at you because I do not know if you didn't get your pet vaccinated. Not getting your pet vaccinated is like not getting your H1N1 shot then getting the swine flu.

If you don't have the money to vaccinate your pet don't get worried, just call your local SPCA or animal human society, don't worry your not alone.

They came about because animals have feelings, they are not just a pet. a pet that doesn't talk, no. a pet will talk to you if your willing to listen. A pet always should and always will have rights because theydeserve it. i mean how would you feel if you were treated badly if you were abused. they don't even have a chance. they go threw life without a choice. they shouldn't ever be treated badly because they just don't need it they don't deserve it. look up stuff about puppymills. they are so mean and frustrating. they are unhealthy to animals and the environment just think about it. They came about because animals have feelings, they are not just a pet. a pet that doesn't talk, no. a pet will talk to you if your willing to listen. A pet always should and always will have rights because theydeserve it. i mean how would you feel if you were treated badly if you were abused. they don't even have a chance. they go threw life without a choice. they shouldn't ever be treated badly because they just don't need it they don't deserve it. look up stuff about puppymills. they are so mean and frustrating. they are unhealthy to animals and the environment just think about it.

To conceal it well, they need to have power over victim. To gain this power they spend quite a while in early stages of relationship convincing victim they are all they have and are dependant on them. Threats are common, they instill fear in the victim.

Because the victim feels love for the person and believes they have noone else, they do what they are told and even help to conceal the abuse themselves.

Its a mind game. I know this. I was a victim. So if you think someone is being abused, they most likely are, but will not admit it because of fear. They will even defend the abuser.

This is a difficult question to answer. Both human rights and animal rights are very important to have in society. If you have to choose between one of them, however, it can be argued that human rights are more important than animal rights, simply because humans are on a higher ethical and intellectual level than animals, and as such humans are more aware of injustice and can therefore suffer more from injustice than animals. However, if you look at it from a moral point of view, you have to say both are equally important because if we as humans have to live in a society where there are only human rights and animals suffer and have no rights, we have lost our humanity and thus, are not human anymore and as a result our human rights become worthless.

Unfortunately, though, any discussion of rights tends to invoke the legal system of whatever nation you're in. The US court system does not recognize animal rights as usually defined due to the fact that animals cannot reasonably be expected to carry out any duties, and are accordingly denied rights. Animals are afforded protection against abuse, though the protection varies from state to state.

animal abusers

A black widow spider's venom is fifteen times as venomous as a rattlesnake, but it gives it in such small doses that it is rarely fatal. It is possible to have an allergic reaction to the venom, but this is not common. The short answer to the question is No, the venom is usually not deadly, but you should still see a doctor.

Burts Bees was bought by Clorox(yes, the bleach company). So, although I can not say if Burts Bees products were actually tested on animals, the company that owns them does.

REVISION: While the parent Company Clorox has admitted to testing on animals, Burt's Bees NOT conduct product or ingredient tests on animals.

Unfortunately, if they are not picked up by someone, they usually will die. If they are picked up, the animal shelter will examine their health, and if they are deemed alright, that animal will be tended to and put up for adoption.

A puppy mill is a large-scale commercial dog breeding operation where profit is given priority over the well-being of the dogs. Unlike responsible breeders, who place the utmost importance on producing the healthiest puppies possible, breeding at puppy mills is performed without consideration of genetic quality. This results in generations of dogs with unchecked hereditary defects.

Read more in the link below.