Author Topic: The spay and neuter argument  (Read 5935 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline james

  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
The spay and neuter argument
« on: June 26, 2010, 06:58:38 AM »
I think this argument is not constructed as well as the other ones.

For example:
"3,242 humans die from car accidents every day and they don’t care, so do you really think they will stop because of a few million cats?"
I'm not familiar with one activist who dedicates his time for stopping people from driving due to trampled cats (or to argue with someone on this matter). This sentence just doesn't seem grounded in reality.

And later, you return to this idea "so you most definitely can't convince them to stop because they might hurt cats."


Also, the sentence "It is even ridicules to say that it is unrealistic to change humans' relation towards animals." is not clear enough. I guess I know what you meant, but still...


Offline E.A.S

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 182
    • View Profile
Re: The spay and neuter argument
« Reply #1 on: July 09, 2010, 05:12:54 AM »
The spay and neuter argument is an inseparable part of the playing god argument and the right to kill argument. It was placed right between them not by chance. We see it as a direct and tangible example that every activist can relate to, because every activist knows this debate very well and some even from first and active hand.
If you separate and isolate it not to mention only specific parts of it, I would agree that it can’t stand alone as a convincing independent argument for the typical activist. However the idea behind writing it was to find an example which is very familiar and that can demonstrate how they all play god.
Not all the activists have experienced it actively but since all of them are familiar with the arguments of both sides and all are familiar with the consequences and the meaning and as mentioned it is very practical and perceptible, it is easier to prove the god like status humans ought to take on a daily basis with this controversial issue.

The power of the argument lays in its familiarness. It was chosen because most can relate to it and because it is the most perceptible way activists plays god, not because it is the most significant way people play god. So if you want to claim that there are better and more important arguments I agree. There is no doubt that the fact that no matter where you get your food, water, clothes and etc it would be on someone else’s expense is a much stronger argument. The fact that to live is to kill means that everyone who decides to live plays god and that’s definitely a stronger example, but it is hard for people to acknowledge that with every consumption they play god. It is even harder to internalize that every action taken affects somehow, somewhere. Every word, every body gesture and most definitely every bite, is a moral incident. Everything exists in the moral sphere as well. Everything is influential and so everything is ethical. This notion is very hard for humans to be aware of all the time.
The thought that you play god constantly is unbearable. To cope with this tremendous responsibly people tend to repress this notion, overshadow the significance of their influence, undervalue the significance of their victims or their ability to change their god like status and etc but none of this makes it less accurate description of reality. Humans and the rest of the creatures for that matter play god all the time. Many activists autisticly cling on to the cruelty free lifestyle on the personal level and the time-consuming effort to change a few more people’s lifestyles, ignoring the fact that they will hurt no matter what. Some will understand that the only way to come close to a real zero effect is to become fruitarian primitivist but as written someplace else in the manifest the total separation from society also means total indifference to the suffering that is still inflicted by the rest of the creatures. It is self-involved moral cleansing, not efficiency. It is a way to ease the responsibility for suffer through consumption but the decision to live separately from society and not trying to change it, makes the separated by choice responsible for everything that is going on in this world, because they know what is going on and they don't do anything to stop it.

Rational and moral people will manage a life under the aspiration to harm as little as possible but somehow not many truly understand that it is impossible to maintain a cruelty free life and that this term itself is an oxymoron when all the creatures compete for the same limited resources. Life=cruelty by definition. Cruelty free life is impossible and more relevant to our discussion is that it is impossible to live without playing god.
One of the most important arguments we are trying to make here is that life is not moral and that we all hurt others and choose for others. We are all gods for that matter.
There is no way to justify the existence of a mechanism that will inevitably cause suffer to the creatures who are trapped within it.
The path to understand there is only one solution goes through the notion that life is immoral, not life in capitalist society, not life where there are factory farms and not life in the stressful society of a social mammal in the hot summer in a shrinking savanna, but all of life and as a principle and by definition. Someone will suffer for someone else by definition. Everyone plays god by definition.
That idea is easy to understand but hard to internalize. That’s why we used the spay and neuter example, hoping that the traumatic experience of physically catching a cat and transferring s/he, while they constantly struggle to get out of the cage or fearfully and helplessly stick to the side of the cage, to the cold and fearful clinic to be forcefully subdued and physically invaded, will demonstrate how horrible and impossible this situation is. Every activist who ever caught a cat and took s/he even for a regular treatment and experienced the cat’s terror knows how emotionally hard it is and justifies this horrible experience for the cat by stating that there is no choice and it is for the cat’s sake. Same goes for the spay and neuter supporters who are thinking about the unborn future kitten who will suffer from all of what we have mentioned and on the other hand standing the opposers who will claim that no one has a right to decide for the existent cat that s/he won’t be able to procreate and physically invade and interfere with their bodies defending the rights of none existing creatures.
Acknowledge it or not, both sides practically agree that they must play god in this debate. The difference between them is what role should god play, not whether it should. The supporters decide to play god for the cat for the sake of the kittens and the opposers decide to play god for the future kittens for the sake of the existent cat.
We hope that the acknowledgment and awareness of the moral deadlock and necessity to play god will urge activists to the only one solution and neutralize the ridiculous and meaningless refusal to play god.
And if to quote from the right to kill argument which is the natural continuation of the example:
"First of all it is meaningless to say that you don’t have a right to do something that you can't avoid anyway. You don’t have a right but you don’t have a choice either. It's not a matter of right it's a matter of fact. You hurt just by being alive and you can't avoid killing even if you really want to. Your vegan food is not growing on Mars and you don’t drink water from Venus. They are from earth and they are on the expense of someone else. So you may think that you don’t have a right to kill or hurt but you do it anyway.

Arguing that we don’t have a right to kill while all life is based on that, while all the creatures are killing each other all the time, is not relevant. Refusing to kill someone means killing someone else. Not killing a human or a lion or a snake is killing all the animals that they will kill."


Taking an active part or not we all know and so we all decide. That’s a very basic and fundamental concept that we believe is a crucial element in the way to the understanding that we all must live as if all the suffering is laid on our shoulders. Once you understand in what kind of a world you live in you are also responsible to change it.
Knowing it's there and not doing anything about it is the same as approving it.

It is easier for activists to relate to the spay and neuter issue than to the fact that they play god every time they don’t stop wasps from injecting their eggs into a live caterpillar’s body to ensure that when their descendants hatch they will have breakfast (the wasp larva will eat the caterpillar from the inside out), every time they don’t stop walrus’ brutal fights with giant teeth that can reach up to one meter long and more than 5kg weight, for territory and for the "right" to mate, every time they don’t stop spiders from chemically liquefy insects before they are eaten, every time they don’t stop snakes from swallowing whole animals and slowly digest them, every time they don’t stop red tailed hawks from digging with their talons into the snakes’ body until they give up fighting back and then start to cut pieces of their body and eat them, every time they don’t stop eels from electrifying other fish to hunt them using up to 600V in a single discharge, every time they don’t stop dolphins’ gang rapes, every time they don’t stop lions from killing other lions cubs to reheat their mother and etc and etc and etc and etc.
It is really an endless list.

Another endless list is the one that demonstrates how people play god every time the insert a calorie into their body. So these two examples are much stronger and more important and that’s why both get a lot of attention in the manifest and in several answers in the FAQ and in the article we made for each issue
Vegan suffer for firefox:
http://onlyonesolution.net/multimedia-articles/vegan_suffer_ff.html
vegan suffer for internet explorer
http://onlyonesolution.net/multimedia-articles/vegan_suffer.html

Non- speciesist suffer for firefox:
http://onlyonesolution.net/multimedia-articles/non_speciesist_suffer_ff.html
Non- speciesist suffer for inrternet explorer:
http://onlyonesolution.net/multimedia-articles/non_speciesist_suffer.html

And again from the manifest:
"If you are not aware of all that, then you should know that you are profoundly affecting the lives of others even if you don’t want to, and if you are aware of all that, then you choose to hurt others if you choose to stay alive.
Why are you deciding for others? Do you have a right? No you don’t. You don’t have a right but you don’t have a choice either. It's not a matter of rights it's a matter of plain facts. You can choose to die or choose to hurt. But you can't choose not to choose. You will hurt even if you don’t want to. This is life. And this is the problem.
Again, suffer and violence are inherent parts of life and no one can avoid them.
If you wish to stop the suffer, you have to stop life."


You wrote:
"I'm not familiar with one activist who dedicates his time for stopping people from driving due to trampled cats (or to argue with someone on this matter). This sentence just doesn't seem grounded in reality."

I think you missed the argument or I missed your problem with it, because the whole point is that "this sentence just doesn't seem grounded in reality". The spay and neuter opposers’ argument is that society should be changed and not the physical structure of cats, when they are asked to address the kittens argument made by the spay and neuter supporters. Since car accidents is a major problem for cats it is relevant to show that even though humans seize car accidents that involve human injures and deaths as a major problem for humans, they don’t care enough to take some steps to prevent some of them and it is not that difficult if they wanted to. The thing is that they don’t. And if they don’t care about thousands of human causalities and probably millions of human injuries per day, it is ridiculous to hope they would care about cats’ deaths and injuries but cars.
The argument is based on the unrealistic notion that society can change according to history and according to the current state of affairs and consequently the opposers’ argument fails.

If you keep taking sentences out of context you’ll keep missing them. This is the whole paragraph and when I read it I fail to see the problem you are trying to indicate.
"So of course we agree that things should be changed from the roots, but you can't convince humans to stop driving even for totally egoistic reasons so you most definitely can't convince them to stop because they might hurt cats. And even if you could it is only part of cats' problems and cats are only part of the world problems."
The opposers say society needs to be changed, and since humans fail to solve the car accidents problem when it comes to humans, which they care about much more than they care about cats (we are sure you wouldn’t argue with that), it is ridiculous to lay the hopes on that.
And it is not only that you took this sentence out of context but the whole paragraph which is, as mentioned earlier in this message, part of the whole debate between the spay and neuter opposers and supporters which serves as an example to prove that everybody inevitably play god everyday, anyway. And the playing god argument purpose is to show that no matter what people would do or think, they decide for someone else. They inevitably decide, hurt and kill and that brings us in the manifest to the right to kill argument.

Also your sentence "It is even ridicules to say that it is unrealistic to change humans' relation towards animals." is not clear enough. I guess I know what you meant, but still..."
Why did you omit the following sentence? The original paragraph is:
"It is even ridicules to say that it is unrealistic to change humans' relation towards animals. We have broadly referred to the chances of a social change based on compassion and moral earlier, so we’ll stick to one relevant example - car accidents."

As you can see from the entire paragraph car accidents is an example that is supposed to strengthen the argument and not the argument itself and in the second sentence it is written specifically that "We have broadly referred to the chances of a social change based on compassion and moral earlier" do you expect us to write everything everywhere all the time? We don’t want to constantly repeat ourselves and definitely not with the attempt to prove that society can’t change, an issue that we refereed to in most of our materials.
In order to make it clearer I would have to copy/paste the entire website into the forum.
I am sorry but that remark is ridiculous and ironic since before we released the final version of the manifest I personally felt that there is too much of the negative argument, meaning too much is concentrated on convincing that it is even ridiculous to say that it is unrealistic to change humans' relation towards animals, so I really have no idea where did you come up with this point. I have and I still feel there is too much of proving that society can’t change so it is very surprising for me to hear that. Maybe you can try to focus your criticism so I can understand what you are talking about. The whole negative argument in the manifest including the AIDS, women, children and Denmark arguments are not enough?

Maybe you missed the articles about women, children,water shortage, poverty and the rest of the materials that deal with humans as victims and in our opinion are all very strong indications that it is ridiculous to hope for a change in the way humans treat animals.  
One of the strongest examples is of course slavery which mainly shows that slavery not only wasn’t ended but rather there are more slaves today than ever before in history.
Even the example given in that specific argument is very relevant and strong as it is on the same line of thought that if humans fail to solve relatively simple problems caused by them to other humans, it is an indication that the problems they cause to creatures from another species will never be solved.

The entire website consists of arguments why it is ridiculous to say that it is unrealistic to change humans' relation towards animals. Every image, every slideshow and every video is an evidence for the ridiculous attempt to change society. Article after article, most of the answers in the FAQ and most importantly the manifest. So I don’t understand where did you come up with that?
« Last Edit: July 11, 2010, 03:49:51 AM by O.O.S »

Offline james

  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: The spay and neuter argument
« Reply #2 on: July 09, 2010, 12:53:44 PM »
Thank you for the detailed answer. Sorry for not including the entire paragraphs.

1. Regarding the first issue, I understand what you mean and agree with the general idea.
Just to make it clear, by saying "doesn't seem grounded", I didn't relate to the chances to change humans, but to the fact that I don't aware of serious activists who believe in the future humans would stop driving due to trampled cats.
__________________________________________________

2.

"The entire website consists of arguments why it is ridiculous to say that it is unrealistic to change humans' relation towards animals. Every image, every slideshow and every video is an evidence for the ridiculous attempt to change society. Article after article, most of the answers in the FAQ and most importantly the manifest. So I don’t understand where did you come up with that? "

I think there was some misunderstanding:
I understood this sentence the opposite way.
If I omit the "un" prefix and say "it is ridiculous to say that it is realistic to change humans". Don't you agree with that sentence (I do)? It is ridiculous to think it is realistic to change humans' relation towards animals.

If I still doing a mess with this sentence, then never mind (English is not my native language).

Offline TCU

  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
    • The Wit and Wisdom of Cancer by Nina Paley
Re: The spay and neuter argument
« Reply #3 on: December 15, 2012, 02:23:49 PM »
...and best of all casterating!
http://www.lamebook.com/oh-balls-nsfw/

Quote
"I did pregnancy synchronizing, vaccinating, horse riding, branding, and best of all casterating! I even ate two of the testes after it was bbqed - it tasted like steak fast.."

http://i.imgur.com/bAVRe.jpg
« Last Edit: December 17, 2012, 11:24:03 AM by TCU »
...Only One Solution {"MAN" by Steve Cutts}

Please feel free to send along editorial suggestions or report broken links. We're about success.

Offline Deadly virus

  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Re: The spay and neuter argument
« Reply #4 on: May 02, 2013, 09:25:00 AM »
Humans are Nazis. Nothing’s new here. Farmers are doing it all the time for years, now a particularly sadistic one found another way of making profit out of animals by reaching other sadists like himself  Does it really make any difference ? It’s still happening all the time.   
Doesn’t matter to the animals who causes them this abuse so it shouldn’t matter to us. 

Offline E.A.S

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 182
    • View Profile
Re: The spay and neuter argument
« Reply #5 on: May 09, 2013, 07:30:43 AM »
It matters since the farmer is doing it as part of his regular routine. It is another practice which might not be very aesthetic or pleasant in the eyes of some, but on the other hand it doesn’t really bother any of them. It is different when someone comes to these farms especially to experience first hand vaccinating, branding, and best of all castrating! They come to these places especially and intentionally to inflict pain, to experience such an extreme violence. What can be more of a power and domination demonstration than cutting a bull’s testicles and then eat them?

Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying it is worse, on the contrary.
The problem is not that some people desire to personally inflict pain on animals, the problem is that morality is so arbitrary that at the same time that most people condemn the people who desire to personally inflict pain on animals, they don’t care that the exact same practices are done to animals for them personally by the farmers.
The fact that people know that branding and castrating and the rest of the routine torture list, are inherent parts of the lives of the animals that their flash they consume, is what’s worst. The apathy towards violence and suffering is our problem and it is not going to stop.

 

TinyPortal © 2005-2015