So disturbing. Wayne, we want only good for you and wife......
I want to create a law that is in reference to COWS....Can you please respond when you have the time? My being vegan pushes me to remark about how cows are used and the myths about their use to the abuse the exists...Something must be put into law with regard to how they must live and be used by humans...People do not know what takes place.
I believe they should be regarded differently for what they have contributed to world, unwillingly...should be treated with a respect, placed differently in the minds of humans specifically of this specie.....Hope you will respond?
Really informative article Wayne! Really want to dive more into each of these areas. I’m by no means an expert on any of this but I think the “coercion” defense for allowing the rescue to happen felt a bit weak to me. It may be true that there haven’t been any other legal avenues to stop the abuse happening at Riglan farms, but I don’t it think it follows from that that you can say that the activists were coerced into acting here. I think the typical image of coercion is here is to picture someone doing something, whether committing a crime or even signing a contract, held at gunpoint. In both cases, I think you’d say the person was acting under coercion because they were under duress, so they can’t be held responsible for the crime or anything in the contract. There’s no metaphorical gun here for the activists imo. As sad as it sounds, I think a court might say that the activists weren’t coerced, because they simply could’ve sat around and done nothing and been fine either way.
I’d also add that the history of not legally recognizing persons is buttressed by the fact that even children weren’t recognized as legal persons for ages. The NhRP made a really forceful case for this that some of the judges in the Happy the Elephant case took up in their dissenting opinions. I think their rights and even the rights of slaves and women were dismissed for the same reasons people dismiss animal rights (and don’t go vegan): “they’re too dumb, too dependent, too weak, and have been oppressed too long.” Hopefully the failure of those arguments in those cases translates here
I sometimes wonder if it would make sense to get some firemen or policemen or animal control officers to testify about the abuses they have seen, and what they had done to stop those abuses, could help. What do you think Wayne?
Thanks for this useful explanation. I wonder if you would concisely tell the status, in your outlook/opinion and in your courtroom experience, of the fact that experimenters manifestly depend on the sufficient personhood or human-likeness of their victims, in asserting that victims' sufferings are like potential human sufferings? I think courts and corps are both saying that that personhood exists indeed in animals, but for purposes of science or profit, that personhood is effectively null/negligible. How would you answer this? I do think the three arguments of coercion, necessity and defense, apply, but the thing you have run up against is blatant, swindling, grafting denial. And the opening you have made is in enabling many to act on primary good faith in common sensitivities of animals and humans. But would you see value in emphasizing that profiteers and courts are actually already admitting, but choosing to abuse personhood? Also do you have an archive of minutes from your cases?
Could you detail the definition of animal you are referring to here? What indicates to you this definition is unquestionable and based on living values?
Ask almost anyone anywhere in the world and they will say that people are people and animals are something else -- animals. Check any dictionary. Arguing that animals have personhood sets us up for ridicule.
No, Wayne will not change his mind because of definitions. I have a feeling his argument is more subtle than how he expresses it. It would be nice to read his thoughts on that.
Thanks, that clarified your comment a bit . . . My guess is that there are several definitions hovering around different groups of animals, and some are curtained off while others are foregrounded, for specific occasions: medicine, law, food production, companionship. I differ from you in thinking that all these variables actually depend on unexamined knowledge that animals are persons, i.e. selves with experience, sensation, motivation, happiness and misery.
The way I see it is, sure, animals have sensation, motivation, emotions, so people are like animals in that sense. But the people we are hoping to persuade will still say animals are animals. I think that if we focus on animals' pain, fear, desire for comfort -- in other words, the "stories" that Wayne speaks about -- we use persuasive arguments and may have better luck
Would this improve in strategy if one said: an animal is a 'self' and a 'self' is a keystone of civilization that we humans aim to preserve, protect, etc. and consequently the entire 'self' of an 'animal' is inviolable, no matter what wealth could be gotten from any part/s of an animal?
I think you are getting close to what people might accept. If there is a word that is better than 'self' people might understand and accept the argument even more. Identity? Personality? Intellect? Cows, for example, have intellect, and each one can probably be seen to have their own personality too, like dogs. Here again, this is where Wayne's "stories" have power.
There's something about the steady and ongoing cruelty to the Ridglan beagles that raises a question about hope in our lives. Today's Democracy Now! goes over the days of the Shah in Iran, and as how his secret police did unspeakable tortures to human beings by personnel on a daily and routine basis, such that it can't possibly have been hope being thusly expressed, which you'd suppose would be the case for anybody working towards retirement in a successful way. My reading of Theodore M. Porter, "A statistical survey of gases: Maxwell's social physics," 1981, pp. 80 [4], suggests there's an enthusiasm for routinized employment carrying you through a universe of 'things' to be controlled as part of a 'statist' project of organizing an urbanizing populace in the 18th and 19th century onward. What else explains the lunatic triumphalism over the computerized targeting of schools, hospitals, and apartment buildings in current 'regime change' operations? It isn't hope being thusly sustained, or leading us on to the next worldly engagement. It rather seems something theatrical, or vengeful, if the act can't be put over.
God bless the heroes and the poor dogs
Thank you so much for helping these poor dogs!
So disturbing. Wayne, we want only good for you and wife......
I want to create a law that is in reference to COWS....Can you please respond when you have the time? My being vegan pushes me to remark about how cows are used and the myths about their use to the abuse the exists...Something must be put into law with regard to how they must live and be used by humans...People do not know what takes place.
I believe they should be regarded differently for what they have contributed to world, unwillingly...should be treated with a respect, placed differently in the minds of humans specifically of this specie.....Hope you will respond?
Really informative article Wayne! Really want to dive more into each of these areas. I’m by no means an expert on any of this but I think the “coercion” defense for allowing the rescue to happen felt a bit weak to me. It may be true that there haven’t been any other legal avenues to stop the abuse happening at Riglan farms, but I don’t it think it follows from that that you can say that the activists were coerced into acting here. I think the typical image of coercion is here is to picture someone doing something, whether committing a crime or even signing a contract, held at gunpoint. In both cases, I think you’d say the person was acting under coercion because they were under duress, so they can’t be held responsible for the crime or anything in the contract. There’s no metaphorical gun here for the activists imo. As sad as it sounds, I think a court might say that the activists weren’t coerced, because they simply could’ve sat around and done nothing and been fine either way.
I’d also add that the history of not legally recognizing persons is buttressed by the fact that even children weren’t recognized as legal persons for ages. The NhRP made a really forceful case for this that some of the judges in the Happy the Elephant case took up in their dissenting opinions. I think their rights and even the rights of slaves and women were dismissed for the same reasons people dismiss animal rights (and don’t go vegan): “they’re too dumb, too dependent, too weak, and have been oppressed too long.” Hopefully the failure of those arguments in those cases translates here
You and your wife are angels 😇 on earth. You have taken a huge step towards awareness of these atrocities ❤️❤️❤️
Excellent interpretation of the law!
Thank you and the entire lay community should thank you!
Keep up the good work toward ridding society of what is essentially evil!
Save the animals!
I sometimes wonder if it would make sense to get some firemen or policemen or animal control officers to testify about the abuses they have seen, and what they had done to stop those abuses, could help. What do you think Wayne?
Thanks for this useful explanation. I wonder if you would concisely tell the status, in your outlook/opinion and in your courtroom experience, of the fact that experimenters manifestly depend on the sufficient personhood or human-likeness of their victims, in asserting that victims' sufferings are like potential human sufferings? I think courts and corps are both saying that that personhood exists indeed in animals, but for purposes of science or profit, that personhood is effectively null/negligible. How would you answer this? I do think the three arguments of coercion, necessity and defense, apply, but the thing you have run up against is blatant, swindling, grafting denial. And the opening you have made is in enabling many to act on primary good faith in common sensitivities of animals and humans. But would you see value in emphasizing that profiteers and courts are actually already admitting, but choosing to abuse personhood? Also do you have an archive of minutes from your cases?
Wonderful rescuers risked everything to help the abused dogs.
Wayne, your article is well written as always. But I feel it is logically weak.
* Animals are not persons, by definition.
* The animals are not "unclaimed" or "abandoned", precisely because they are in cages that hold them in claimed bondage.
But your previous article, on the power of stories that tell of cruelty, indicates a powerful way to persuade.
Could you detail the definition of animal you are referring to here? What indicates to you this definition is unquestionable and based on living values?
And why Wayne might change his mind because of that definition?
Ask almost anyone anywhere in the world and they will say that people are people and animals are something else -- animals. Check any dictionary. Arguing that animals have personhood sets us up for ridicule.
No, Wayne will not change his mind because of definitions. I have a feeling his argument is more subtle than how he expresses it. It would be nice to read his thoughts on that.
Thanks, that clarified your comment a bit . . . My guess is that there are several definitions hovering around different groups of animals, and some are curtained off while others are foregrounded, for specific occasions: medicine, law, food production, companionship. I differ from you in thinking that all these variables actually depend on unexamined knowledge that animals are persons, i.e. selves with experience, sensation, motivation, happiness and misery.
The way I see it is, sure, animals have sensation, motivation, emotions, so people are like animals in that sense. But the people we are hoping to persuade will still say animals are animals. I think that if we focus on animals' pain, fear, desire for comfort -- in other words, the "stories" that Wayne speaks about -- we use persuasive arguments and may have better luck
Would this improve in strategy if one said: an animal is a 'self' and a 'self' is a keystone of civilization that we humans aim to preserve, protect, etc. and consequently the entire 'self' of an 'animal' is inviolable, no matter what wealth could be gotten from any part/s of an animal?
I think you are getting close to what people might accept. If there is a word that is better than 'self' people might understand and accept the argument even more. Identity? Personality? Intellect? Cows, for example, have intellect, and each one can probably be seen to have their own personality too, like dogs. Here again, this is where Wayne's "stories" have power.
There's something about the steady and ongoing cruelty to the Ridglan beagles that raises a question about hope in our lives. Today's Democracy Now! goes over the days of the Shah in Iran, and as how his secret police did unspeakable tortures to human beings by personnel on a daily and routine basis, such that it can't possibly have been hope being thusly expressed, which you'd suppose would be the case for anybody working towards retirement in a successful way. My reading of Theodore M. Porter, "A statistical survey of gases: Maxwell's social physics," 1981, pp. 80 [4], suggests there's an enthusiasm for routinized employment carrying you through a universe of 'things' to be controlled as part of a 'statist' project of organizing an urbanizing populace in the 18th and 19th century onward. What else explains the lunatic triumphalism over the computerized targeting of schools, hospitals, and apartment buildings in current 'regime change' operations? It isn't hope being thusly sustained, or leading us on to the next worldly engagement. It rather seems something theatrical, or vengeful, if the act can't be put over.