Disturbing Attacks of Temple Grandin As An Aspie

Post Reply New Topic

Hahhh, that's pretty nifty.
Peta is a terrorist organization. Trufax.
They really crossed the line when they said cows milk causes autism... BS lies. Anyone or anything who voluntarily associates with them can go straight to hell for all I care.

And Temple Grandin is a genius.

This Animal Rights Movement is quite bizarre: Our ancestors were quite happy in the most cases if they had any meet to eat at all and certainly did not care anyway regarding the well-being of animals. They were to much busy to survive for their own. Animals neither care about the well-being of their food - or had anyone reported lions discussing how to kill more "human"?

I think it needs a society with bored people, seeking a area of activity for boringness and their emotions, and a big surplus in production above the elementary needs to produce such an organization like Peta.

PETA doesn't care about the wellbeing of livestock. They want our relationship with other animals to be terminated. They probably have a particular contempt for what might be called "animal people", anyone who has a strong rapport with animals. Their supporters don't understand much of anything. That, or they don't know PeTA. PETA wants your pets dead if that's what it takes to get them out of your hands and they have a lot of fellow travelers who won't trust most humans with animals. They are not expressing love for animals. They are using the idea of love of animals against humans and animals.

One thing I've noticed about people who have a strong rapport with animals. They seem to be more independent thinkers, have higher IQs, and usually have somewhat more compassion for humanity. Animals bring autistic children out of their shells and help them get along with humanity better, and I was a lot happier when I had more contact with animals. It is OK to use them for our happiness. They're happy to share that with us.

Predation is natural and necessary. Humans can serve the function of moderating predator and prey populations. We're pretty good at keeping apex predators, thus the wolf has become our constant companion and numbers in the hundreds of millions. Human intervention can both increase the numbers and quality of life of most other species. This is exactly what animal rights activists want to prevent us from doing, living in peace with other animals.

I just want to comment in defense of what animal rights is trying to accomplish.

First, animal rights is ecologically individualistic. Meaning, the lives of individual animals matters. They can't be sacroficed for a greater ecological whole or good.

Second, animals are "subjects of a life" meaning animals have value as individuals, regardless of their membership in a larger biotic community.

Third, animals are "ends in themselves" vs. "means to an end."

Fourth, animal rights comes out of philosophy vs. science. So the foundations of animal rights claims are philosophical in nature vs. scientific, based on reason vs. emperical evidence. Much of it comes out of spefific theories such as the concept of rights, utilitarianism, Kantian deontological ethics "duties," etc.

Fifth, animal rights draws more from the princaples of "civilized society" vs. "wilderness survival." Meaning animal rights applies the same standards of conduct in human civilization to our relationship with nonhumans. Versus, the standards of conduct when you are trying to survive in a hostile wilderness areas.

Sixth, animal rights makes a strong distinction between what is "natural" and what is "morally right." Oftentimes what is most natural, is not what is most morally right.

Seventh and finally, it is important to make a distinction between animal rights and animal welfare. Animal rights, also sometimes refered to as animal liberation, wants the oblishment of certian practices, e.g. factory farms, animal experimentation. While animal welfare is not in-favor of the oblishment of these practices, and instead wants these practices to be more compassionate and humane, e.g. humane slaughter, spay and neutering cats and dogs. Grandin and some of you seem to express sentiments toward being in the animal welfare camp.

I personally believe the argument for both animal rights and animal welfare are cogent and legitimate. Where I part ways with the movement is in four areas-

1. Marginal Case Arguments-"that some people are so inferior, that some animals are superior to certian people, and therefore those people need to be experimented on, instead of certian animals." As Aspies, this is the argument which we are reacting most to, and find the most offensive and disturbing. Subsequently, must reject!! ! One can support animal rights/welfare while rejecting "marginal case arguments." There are other basises!! !

2. Purism-that you have to be a perfect vegan, never use any animal product, to be a validly moral animal rights/welfare person. I believe that our society is so dependent on animals, and our personal circumstances and mitigates the actualization of such a stand-in lived reality. It is better to advocate "progressive diengagement"(Andrew Linzey) -in otherwords, doing the best you can and as much as possible.

3. Negativity-I believe that it is better to focus on how to live right with animals than dwell all the time on what we are doing wrong to animals.

4. Seperation-I don't believe that animals need to be protected from all human contact or contamination, I believe that we are called in live nonviolently in relationship with nonhuman animals.

But, I definately contend, the core value of animal rights are legitimate, that animal life is of value and animal are entitled to moral consideration. I am with animal rights people, that things like factory farms, sports hunting, fur-wearing, etc. need to go. And, I am with them, that it's not enough to preserve ecosystems, we also need to preserve individual animal lives. Although, ecosystems in my opinion matter too. So, I don't "throw the baby out with the bath water." And, I also seperate animals and animal rights people too. I value animal life on its own terms, apart from the movement and its claims.

A good book I am reading write now is by George Lakoff, Don't Think Of An Elaphant he talks about how progressive are not good at "framing issues." Animal rights people are no exception, animal rights is legitimate, but some of their "framing" is problematic at-best e.g. marginal cases. They basically have a very serious problem with "framing." There are so many better ways to frame animal rights, than "marginal cases." So it is important to seperate legitimate truth-claims from bad framing.

Thanks very much for taking an interest in this issue!! ! This is where I am comming from.

No, Goose, that's what they want you to think that they are trying to accomplish. Like any good churchie you haven't tried to see any of your religions from the outside.

PETA may be barmy, but they did do one thing right. During the evacuation of New Orleans, when people were ordered to leave their pets/companion animals behind, against previously agreed upon procedure, PETA spoke out about this. If I recall correctly, they took a full page ad out in a major newspaper. After protests by them and many others, the US military or whoever was in charge at that time reversed their policy and went with the proper procedure to evacuate pets with their owners.

I have experiences with animals, outside of and independent of the animal rights movement.

These experiences teach me that animals have value and are worthy of moral consideration. And, call me to live nonviolently with them.

This is what keeps me going on this front, despite some of the issues I have with the movement.

I take what is "useful" from animal rights, for acheiving my goals, and leave the rest. And, filtered it through my own experiences and discernment.

I definately believe that animal rights people have basically good intentions, although they might be misguided at times with some of thier stradgies and framing. And, some of the stuff I can do without.

But, a belief in the intrinsic value of each animal life is an essential part of my belief-value system. Of who I am. And, I believe that my Aspie-nature lead me to this conclusion.

And, I am surronded by people on the outside, who are not sympathetic to animals and animal rights. Most of their arguments I do not find convincing and not any more edifying to my Aspie experiences as some of the stuff comming from PETA.

I have also found that some of the same people who are not sympathic to animal rights or welfare, are also people that are more likely to target me because I am an Aspie. Although, not always true. And, many of the same arguments used against audie pride are also the same arguments, used against animal rights. There is definately a link oppresssion thing going on. Also, neurotypical people deal with peoples on the spectrum in a manor very similar to nonhuman animals. I am documenting and writing about this-as we speak.

We bring an essential perspective to the animal rights/welfare cause, and all of us must be in solidarity against neurotypicalism.

Basically, the only problem with animal rights is that it is too speciesist (priviledging humans over other animals). Its problem is that is has kept in-tact philosophies which are fundimentally speciesist and ablelist. And, use these philosphies to beat the enemy at their own game, misguidingly.

It was an easy way to make themselves look good. PETA is far too evil to give them credit for anything.

Goose, you must have been half asleep when you wrote that last message. It's hard to read and understand.

.