I think maybe I wasn't clear - Not at all dissing folks who are vegetarian or vegan. I actually have huge respect for anyone who can maintain an anti-harm process with food, entertainment, etc. That takes an incredible amount of dedication and self-control, and thus far, isn't something I have been able to fully accomplish in my own life. (much as I try!)

I was more speaking to the elevation of veganism as a "popular" trend and not an actual lifestyle choice within certain "hipster" circles. (something that is picked up as a means to enter social circles, gain respect as "anti-harm", etc. and not because they have personally evaluated their part in the commercialization of animal harm) I think it takes money to do that in a lot of cases and, in turn, can be fleeting at best. (and I'm totally owning my personalization with this, btw)

I have encountered several vegans and vegetarians who don't eat animal products but who do wear leather, smoke bidis, and have furniture or clothing in their homes that are not harm-free. I don't know their personal reasons for choosing to do one but not the other and get that it might not be practical to throw out a house full of leather furniture in favor of buying stuff made from synthetic materials.
I was just kinda publically scratching my head about the polarity of it all.

To be honest, I doubt that most American *adults* know who any of those people are except Einstein (who is the one scientist everyone knows). I would be shocked if most American women know who Franklin was or if most American queers know about Turing. I think that we, as parents, have to do a better job at teaching our children what traits are worthy of honor and emulation and what are not.

So let's say that Mr. Vick--not by NFL dictate but by public pressure--were never allowed to play football again. What then? Is there anyone here who doubts that no matter WHAT job he obtained someone would say "they hired Michael Vick, I'm never shopping/eating/patronizing that company ever again"? I am entirely unconvinced--based solely on what I have been reading here and on news sites--that there is any job that Mr. Vick could hold that would not result in a hue and cry. Notwithstanding some job that was so dangerous that to take it was to make one's death a certainty--clearing minefields with a sledgehammer, cleaning out the inside of hot nuclear reactors without the benefit of a suit, testing for gas fumes with a Zippo lighter--I doubt there's any kind or class of job for which people would say that Mr. Vick's crimes were not prima facie evidence of his unfitness.

Cheers
Aj

I don't see this as a black/white, either/or kind of conversation. The abuse of animals or any living thing is equally abhorrent to me. Someone who abuses an animal is equally as likely to abuse a human being. It is part of the human pathology of othering someone or thing in order to justify, sanctify or allow mistreatment.

I hope that we can allow that there is a lot we do not know about the workings of animals. I am not talking about anthropomorphizing or a Eurocentric view of animals. I am talking about the complex lives of animals. I have loved Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson's books on animal emotions.

In order for the abuse of humans to stop and our behavior to evolve it seems to me that we need to understand and treat all living things with compassion.

I think this articles ties many of the themes discussed in this thread together quite well.

http://www.thenation.com/article/ben...ustice-no-play

For those not familiar, Ben Roethlisberger is the starting (white) quarterback of the Pittsburgh Steelers- one of the leading teams in the NFL. Roethlisberger is one of the biggest stars in the NFL and has helped the Steelers win 2 Super Bowls. He was originally suspended for 6 games at the beginning of this season, but it was cut down to 4 games for his "good behavior." The Steelers are in the playoffs once again this year with Big Ben at the helm.

I think the differences between how Ben Roethlisberger and Michael Vick have been treated in the media and the reaction by the general public is very much connected. One is white, one is black. One concerned the alleged rape of a 20 year old woman (the second accusation of rape brought against him) and one against the abuse of animals. I don't think the difference in the reactions and treatment are based purely on race or purely on what people get all up in arms about- I think it is both of those things, among others.

Hi June,

I have known several people who own pitbulls because of their negative reputation...and who do everything they can to foster that image of a vicious, tough dog by encouraging that behavior. For me, those are the last people who should own them. (Sorry I didn't explain that better).

I think that anyone who owns an animal has a responsibility to make certain that they are well-cared for, but also that they are good "doggy citizens."

Example...we take our mini-doxie to the local dog beach. The sign clearly states that only well-behaved, well-controlled dogs should be allowed off leash. Dogs that don't fit that description are still welcome, but have to remain on leash. Dogs that are not controllable with a leash should not be there at all. Pretty basic.

We let Shadow run off leash. He's tiny. He's not aggressive. He loves everyone. And he plays well with other dogs. If pushed, he goes passive, belly up, and let's other dogs be the boss. No problem.

A couple weeks ago, we were leaving the beach...Shadow trotting along ahead of me off leash towards the parking lot. Suddenly, he's hurtling back towards me as fast as his little legs can carry him....with what appeared to be a half-grown pitbull or pitbull mix in hot pursuit. Behind the other dog is his owner...drunk, swearing, swinging a leather leash and striking the dog while cussing at him...his effort at "controlling" his dog. Shadow, perfectly aware that he is squeaky-toy-sized, hides between my legs....with the other dog lunging at him and snapping.

It was almost funny....half-grown pitbull racing in circles around my legs, with drunk man running loopier circles in deep sand around behind him. The problem, of course, is that his dog is snapping at mine (and close to my ankles). When his dog connected and bit my dog's ear, on about the 8th or 10th circle....with crowd gathering....I'd had enough. I picked up my dog and, when his dog jumped up to snap at Shadow in my arms, gave him a solid knee to the chest and told him "get down" in a stern voice.

The pit stopped and looked at me like I was crazy, but he also stopped what he was doing. Clearly, this wasn't a bad dog. This was a bad owner. However, I would bet that in a few years, after being beaten and chased and yanked around by a drunken idiot...might be a different story.

And, yes, I would have preferred to knee the guy in the chest instead of the dog.

Actually, a pit bull's bite pressure per square inch is the one of the lowest of all the breeds. Their jaw morphology isn't capable of locking.

But it brings up an interesting point, we have created a mythology and moralization around uses for dogs. Herding or farm dogs are morally acceptable. Service dogs are morally acceptable. Designer-type dogs are annoying, but acceptable. "Fighting" dogs are not acceptable, unless these dogs are used as members of the family that just happen to be able to kill an intruder.

If I made the argument that a breed like pit bull was "born to" fight, and it was in their nature, I would have my ass handed to me. Yet we are very comfortable assigning herding qualities to sheep dogs(as an example).

It seems to be all in the eye of the beholder. What we value or need in dogs we suddenly "see" in them, whether it is there or not.

Bulldog:

Thank you for posting this. The difference could not be more clear. In fact, the light of the Sun is less obvious than this. One thing the author says--and I'm glad he put it in there--was this:

"Ben Roethlisberger should be thanking the heavens that he is white. If he was Ben the black guy accused of sexual assault in Georgia, he might not even make it to trial."

I'm going to say something now that will probably make a lot of people here VERY uncomfortable, but I think it has to be said.

I was harsh on my son because the last thing I EVER want is for him to have to deal with the police or the court systems. The police because one wrong word--not a movement, not a gesture, a word--and I would be attending his funeral. I don't want him to have to deal with the court system because--well, look at this discussion--I don't know a woman of color who would want her son left to the tender mercies of the sentiments expressed here.

I think that there are people--and I'm talking about people on this site--who would gladly and on very little evidence, happily send my son or any other random black man, to his death or prison for the rest of his natural days and sleep the sleep of the righteous that very evening.

Again, what Michael Vick did was inexcusable and certainly a crime. I do not know how long his sentence should have been but there is no lack of posts here expressing the sentiment that he should never be forgiven (e.g. no parole, no second chance) or that his punishment should be unending or that he shouldn't be allowed to return to his livelihood. I am TRYING--without much success--to see it from the point of view of people on the other side.

I love animals--what's more, I respect them. As some of you know, I am a biologist by training studying more so that I can actually practice that science in a lab somewhere. I look at each living thing as an absolute *marvel* of evolution--a work of natural art. As an evolutionary biologist, I recognize that there is a continuum from, say, rotifers (very simple aquatic animals) at one extreme and us at the other. I recognize that within the mammals that continuum starts to get VERY fuzzy and the more recent the mammal, the fuzzier it gets. I am willing to go pretty far--farther than most people here probably would go--and say that instead of speaking of *human* rights it might be useful to speak of *chimpanzee* rights with us as just another species of chimp. (Thus granting to chimps the full suite of rights we expect) Because outside of language and art, I'm not sure that there are enough cognitive or emotional differences between us and the other two chimp species to matter. My issue with the sentiments expressed here are not born out of disdain for other animals (notice I say other because we are just a specific case of animal) but because I believe that a non-trivial part of the energy behind this issue is driven by race (and possibly/probably class).

I believe in redemption. I believe that people make mistakes--sometimes truly egregious mistakes--that they live to regret. Do I think that Mr. Vick should be allowed to own pets? No, in much the same way that I would not want my daughter-in-law or my wife alone with Mr. Roethlisberger. But I disagree, strenuously, with this idea that Mr. Vick should not be able to make a living and, as I've said a number of times now, I doubt that there is any non-suicidal job he could take that people would not be up-in-arms about.

Cheers
Aj

Absolutely Aj. I am also quite certain that if the crimes had been reversed, that Ben Roethlisberger would have been treated less harshly than Michael Vick- by the media, general public, the NFL and police- for the exact same crime that Michael Vick committed.

Blush:

I would also like to point out that when we are talking about dogs what we actually talking about are wolf puppies. What we have done, in the process of domesticating wolves and transmuting them into dogs, is take wolves and prevent them from growing up. Every single dog behavior can be observed in wolves. Even the herding behavior is really stalking behavior. Keep in mind that, from a biological point of view, dogs are a subspecies of wolf they are not their own species. Biologists define a species as a reproductively isolated population--meaning that it cannot interbreed with another population and produce viable, fertile offspring. Now, the mechanics of some dog breeds mixing with wolves would be, to say the least, interesting if not comical* but given that you are dealing with any of your larger breeds of dogs and any random grey wolf, they would produce offspring and that offspring could then go off and produce more offspring.

Those of us who have dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) are living with wolves that will never grow up (Canis lupus). Now, if a chihuahua has what I call a 'wolf moment' and bits you, you're getting some stitches maybe. If my dog, Angus, has a wolf moment and bites you you may very well be on your way to the hospital (he has very powerful jaws).

Cheers
Aj

((one can only imagine a wolf bitch in heat and some male shi tzu doing the dog equivalent of "hey, what's your name. You got a friend? I could be your friend" to get the idea)

AJ nailed it again.

I was sitting here trying to visualize a world where we have backyards full of plasmodial slime molds and children frolicking through the park with their pet snails on leashes. Or perhaps a trained mosquito. Or a sea urchin named "Fluffy".

How everything is assigned a "value" based on how we tend to perceive it, not necessarily on how it really is. Hence, a dog is given more heart-space than a snail. We might kill a spider by stomping on it faster than we would a kitten. We would share our bed with a puppy but not necessarily a pig (which might be just as intelligent).

And even in the human world, we "other" human beings based on what we perceive to be their value as evidenced by racism, ableism, sizism, sexism, etc.

The article I quoted details all of this. This isn't a he said/she said case at all.

Not in the mood to argue with you.

That is the human pathology I was talking about. Othering allows us to make all sorts of distinctions that we use to justify our behavior. That is why reducing the discussion down to dogs vs. pigs misses the bigger conversation as to what we are going to do about how we treat one another and this planet. All the "isms" are part of this othering. They are all distinct and separate but are part of the bigger problem. We do it to humans, we do it to animals, we even do it to plants.

I don't think Michael Vick is beyond redemption. I am more concerned with and passionate about how we can stop humans from hurting one another and other living things.

What chills me are comments like he should be allowed to work, but not in football. i understand not allowing pedophiles to be near children after their release from prison. i can understand not allowing Michael Vick to own a dog. That is a means of protecting potential victims.

But it amazes me that people think that they should have any other rights over someone who has already served their time, paid their fines, whatever.

Because someone committed crime, they have not lost their status as a fellow adult human. They get to be that. No one can tell them how to make a living, who to have a relationship with, where to go out for dinner. i am serious.

Is this an American thing? A conservative thing? It's not the reality of fear or prejudice towards those who have been convicted of crimes that weirds me out. It's this belief that one has the right to tell these people how to live their lives after they have paid for their crimes. That is CHILLING. Effing scary.

Break it down. It's the not on my block, not around MY children kind of thinking. It's shunning. Creating a category of person who has no right to live and work among us? What is he supposed to do, blind himself and wander outside the the city limits? What would be good enough? If he is a monster, then he needs to be incarcerated and kept away from us. Hopefully, there he will be treated humanely so that WE don't have to carry the burden of hurting and humiliating other creatures. If he is not shown to be a monster, then he is free to live among us. That's it. The end. He is one of us. He is part of our community, our world. He has a right to be.

The idea that he has to live in shame forever, to not be able to do the best for himself and his family, and that anybody has the right to limit his prospects is dehumanizing to all people. All of us. If you are here among us, and do not pose a clear danger, then you are one of us. Not to welcome this person is to create a category of people that we feel free to discriminate against. That's the slippery slope that leads to abuses of all kinds. No. He has a right to be here and do what he does. If it upsets you, look to changing the law.

This is something that I try to keep in mind with ALL domesticated animals--that what we have done, whether we are comfortable with this fact or not--is taken some creature that was on its own evolutionary path and doing very nice, thank-you-very-much, and modified it to suit our own interests. Now, at this point, I think that it gives us a *responsibility* to these animals--a special responsibility above and beyond any kind of stewardship responsibilities we may or may not feel toward, say, polar bears or snails.

Dogs, cats, chickens, sheep, turkeys, goats, cows, pigs, some species of duck, horses and some species of rodents are OUR creations and we are obliged to make certain that they are taken care of. The only ones on that non-exhaustive list I would give any chance at all without us would be cats, dogs, possibly pigs (but probably not) and some of the rodents (because they're not really domesticated, I think, they're just accustomed to our presence and more than happy to let us feed them and keep them safe from predators). The rest on that list wouldn't last a year without us around. Cows, sheep, chickens and turkeys would certainly be gone without us. Most smaller dogs would be gone and the non-fixed large breeds would revert back to wolf-like behavior surprisingly quickly.

Now, I'll admit that I have this continuum with other animals. The metric I use is, well, let's call it an encephalitic index or neurological complexity index. The more complex the neurological system, the more 'rights' I think a given animal species is entitled to. So chimps, as I said above, may very well deserve the FULL set of legal rights we grant to one another even though they are not capable of human speech (lacking some circuitry). Large swaths of the cetaceans (dolphins, porpoises, whales) and cephalopods (squid and octopi) are sufficiently neurologically complex (based upon their behavior) to be granted some kinds of rights. The animals we use for food should be killed in the most humane way devisable. NO animal should be treated with cruelty or put to pain for our entertainment.

However, with the possible exception of the other Great Apes, I do not think that we should necessarily put other animals in the same moral circle as humans. The only reason I have the exception for the other Apes is that, as I said, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the *primary* differences between us and chimps are that the latter lack the hardware in the throat and the wetware in the cranium for full human speech. Other than that, I see them and I see--well, us.

I'll try to illustrate with a story:

Years ago, I was babysitting for my landladies in San Francisco to pay off the deposit on the apartment I rented from them. Their daughter, Emma, loved Koko the Gorilla (her moms had taken her to the San Diego zoo) and so twice a week we would go to the SF Zoo to see the gorillas. Something that struck me on one of our early visits, was how *recognizable* everything happening was. I watched the silverback as one of his grandsons played in front of (and on) him. His patience was obvious even though this young gorilla was being obnoxious in a way that only juvenile primates can be! Every interaction I could recognize and understand with just a little observation. I didn't get *every* nuance, I didn't understand every precipitating gesture but there was nothing there that I didn't recognize from my own family experiences.

The silverback got used to our presence and would come over to greet us after a while. One day we were there and he was not his usual self. He would look at me, make eye contact (which was odd in itself) and then look at his family. This went on for a while. I got the feeling he was trying to tell me something. A day or two later, I picked up the paper and read that he had died of old age and in that moment, I realized what was going on. He KNEW, at some level, that this was it and he wanted to know that there was a witness who had seen what he had done. This was his troupe, his family, they were his legacy. I was his witness. As I write this, I get choked up.

Some would say that he was 'just a stupid gorilla' but gorillas have very large brains and pretty complex social structures. When I look at chimps I see something SO familiar that it is eerie. I try to not anthropomorphize too much because I know that roughly 9 million years separate me and a gorilla and about seven million years separate me and a chimp. But it is obvious that we are all in the same family.

Cheers
Aj