Springhole.net Blog

I recently found out that PETA president Ingrid Newkirk just turned 60.

My brain reeled, and the first thought that registered was, “ONLY 60?” Honestly, I thought this woman was older. Maybe nearing 70. Especially after the time she fell and snapped her wrist bones trying to catch herself.

So much for vegan diets slowing down the aging process…

Oh, and apparently PETA got butthurt because President Obama killed a fly. Um. Right. Can we possibly get any stupider?

Animal rights activists are at it again. Bolding mine.

Here is a summary of the four issues decided this week:

In Dallas, City Council voted 10-3 to pass an animal control ordinance requiring mandatory pet sterilization, expensive permits to own intact dogs and cats, mandatory microchipping and pet ownership limits. The ordinance also bans tethering of dogs and imposes strict requirements for keeping dogs outdoors. Home inspections also are authorized.

In California, the Senate Local Government Committee voted 3-2 to approve AB1634, which now will be sent to the Senate Appropriations Committee. If this committee approves, it will be sent to the legislature for a vote. This bill allows any person to act as a vigilante and report any dog owner for an unsubstantiated violation of any animal law. If any animal control officer agrees, the accused person will have a choice between paying a fine or sterilizing the animal. People who are accused of anything have no right to defend themselves or to appeal. An accusation is automatic guilt.

In Pennsylvania, the House Rules Committee voted Tuesday to approve HB2532, which is a de facto ban on tail docking, dewclaw removal and ear cropping. In the absence of proof that the procedure was performed by a veterinarian, the mere possession of a dog that has had one of those three procedures subjects an owner to a criminal citation for animal cruelty. This bill would destroy many rescue operations, dog shows, competitive events and field trials in Pennsylvania and result in the deaths of thousands of dogs. This bill now goes to the full House for a vote, and then to the Senate.

Also in Pennsylvania, the House Agriculture Committee approved amendments to the state dog and kennel law that fall short of changes that were promised to dog owner advocacy groups. The actual text of this legislation was not available at this writing, and a follow-up report will be issued when the revised legislation is available. This bill now goes to the full House for a vote, and then to the Senate.

Read the rest here.

Our favorite armchair warriors without a clue have been making attempts to stop the practice of mulesing in Australia.

Mulesing, I’m afraid, is not a pretty sight – something akin to having one’s butt scalped.

While this practice may seem shocking and barbaric at first, it’s an important precaution to protect the sheep against a condition known as flystrike. Merino sheep, the sheep raised in Australia for wool, have folds of loose skin on their hind ends – the perfect place for blowflies to lay their eggs. When the maggots hatch, they feed upon the flesh of the sheep, a condition which will be fatal unless treated in time. If a flystricken sheep does not receive treatment, it will die a slow death of blood poisoning.

Mulesing, the practice of removing this skin, takes care of the problem once and for all. Once the loose skin is removed, the sheep is set for life. A little pain and discomfort now prevents a lot of agony and even a horrible death later.  There are also products out there that minimize pain and aid healing, and any good farmer knows that a happy animal is a productive animal.

The farmers are taking action: there is now a petition you can sign to tell PeTA to back off and get their nose out of what they don’t properly understand. PeTA claims that mulesing is cruel and unnecessary – but take a look at a look at what flystrike does. (Not for the squeamish!) Mulesing is nowhere near that horrible – especially since it only needs done once, and flystrike can occur again and again, causing unnecessary pain and stress to the sheep.

In order to combat the idiocy, a petition has been made to tell PeTA to back off and shut up. You can read the article here and sign the petition here. After you sign the petition it will ask for a donation to the petition’s host website, but this is optional and does not affect whether or not your signature appears.

Every now and then someone posits that animals are waaaaaay smarter than we think they are. You often see statements like this:

“Just because we built the atom bomb doesn’t make us smarter.”

“Maybe they don’t have machinery because they don’t want to harm the environment.”

“Maybe they don’t want to complete the experiment.”

“Animals might have morals.”

“You can’t disprove it!”

Most people who take such positions have very little personal experience with animals except for cartoons and the occasional pet.

Claim 1: Animals aren’t building machines because they “know better.”

How could they know better? We only “know better” because we have the experience that taught us. We went through years of trial-and-error to learn what we know. In fact, most of what we know could have only been learned through our advanced technology. If it weren’t for our machinery that let us examine ice cores and other such things, we would have never known about global warming, and that it was more than just a natural phenomenon.

On the other hand, animals have never had any way to gain this knowledge, nor do they have the means or time to pass such complicated knowledge to their offspring.

You and I spent years learning what we know about the world. In the time that it takes us to graduate from school, most species will have gone through several generations. Animals also don’t have time to waste on such things: while you’re reading about plate tectonics in the comfort of your air-conditioned home, most animals are scrounging for their next meal. Thus, they have never had the time or luxury of learning about such things you begin with. You might as well ask a bushman about the chemical makeup of ice cores.

Claim 2: Animals may appear less intelligent because they don’t want to exhibit certain behaviors that would indicate intelligence.
Oh, where to begin. First of all, one rule of natural selection is to “use it or lose it.” Animals that live in areas with no light have lost the use of their eyes. Ground birds have only rudimentary wings, and some species, such as the kiwi, have lost theirs entirely. If animals spent generations deliberately acting stupid, it would only be a matter of time before their “hidden intelligence” vanished for real.

Secondly, nothing deliberately acts stupid when it comes to meeting basic needs or when one’s life is on the line. This is completely counterproductive to survival. Even if animals were doing this, natural selection would stand in favor of the animals who were bright enough not to “play dumb” in the first place. And yes, there would be “rebels” if they were indeed that smart: for an entire species to be in an agreement about “playing dumb,” a virtual hive-mind in would have to be in control of every single one. Yet animals constantly behave in manners that show that they are individuals and think as such.

Claim 3: We can’t tell for sure whether or not animals have morals.

Morals are generally based on opinion, and as such, change quite rapidly. Take a single group of rats. Separate into two. Give them identical conditions. Put them through various “natural” hardships such as starvation, weather extremes, etc. Observe for several generations. Note that several generations later, both groups are still behaving and reacting the same way.

Take a look at dogs. For everything we’ve done to them, their basic behavior is basically the same. Some dogs are more suited for certain tasks and exhibit certain behaviors more than others, but only because we’ve bred them so the instincts they need for those tasks are present in specific breeds and has nothing to do with doggish “morals.”

No morals here; just hard-wired instinct still at work.

This does not mean that animals are not necessarily smarter than we think. Research is always finding cases that show that animals are a little smarter than we realized. Chimpanzees use spears. Crows make hooks. Bonobos can learn to make stone blades that are just as sophisticated as the earliest human blades.

Bottom line: are some animals smarter than we think? Sure. Are they shaking their heads in wonder as we kill each other over petty disputes and fatten ourselves up on junk food? No. They’re not that smart, and even if they were, they’d be doing the same thing themselves. As it is, horses will already gorge themselves to death on oats and many, many wild animals use violence in order to establish territory and dominance.

The kind of thinking I’m addressing is a close relative of the noble savage myth, a myth also created in ignorance, by people who had never even met the primitive tribes they were exalting. Check it out sometime.

Now repeat the mantra: Bambi and Charlotte’s Web are not documentaries.

If you hate killing animals, gardening is not for you. That is, unless insects and isopods aren’t animals. (You speciesist/sizist, you!)

After a few square feet and one hour in the garden, I sent over three hundred garden pests to their doom. A few feet. One hour. Over three hundred pests.

Then I went out and killed a few hundred more.

Now which do you suppose has a higher death toll attached – a year’s worth of beans or a year’s worth of free-range meat?

If you’ve ever seen animal rights groups carrying on, you’ve probably run into their claim that veganism is better for the environment and economy. Other research suggests that this ain’t necessarily so.

Critical thinking shows that animal rights bigwigs only seem to care about the environment as far as it suits their purpose. PeTA recently endorsed eating in-vitro meat. They’ve long abhorred leather in favor of vinyl and synthetics.

Hullo? Are they that clueless about the things that go into making such products? Are they not aware that in vitro meats would be created by machinery guzzling fossil fuels and oil instead of grazing on natural grass powered by the sun? Are they not aware that vinyl and fossil fuels come from the oil drilled from the ground which has its own price in blood and destructive impact on the environment?

It seems these people don’t care as long as they can’t actually see the death and destruction being caused or the remains of the animals that died for their “cruelty-free” products. I don’t know about you, but I’ll stick with meat and leather, both of which are superior products. Leather lasts longer than any synthetic you can chuck up, it has better insulation properties, and it wasn’t related to an oil spill in the ocean. And meat… well, we know that the historical evidence does not fit the extravagant claims they make about it being dangerous to your health.

Animal rights activists are well-known for their faulty logic and conclusions based on misinformation. Today I’m going to examine their some of their logic.

P is Premise; C is Conclusion.

P: A ‘natural environment’ is best for an animal’s happiness and well-being.
C: An animal under human care must be suffering in some way.

The premise begs the question by assuming that natural environments are best for an animal’s well-being. Let’s examine the evidence.

Many animals under human care are given protection from dangers found in their ‘natural environment.’ All are virtually freed from the dangers of predators and parasites. Food shortage is less likely to be a problem. They are more likely to have protection from extreme weather conditions. If they are injured, they are more likely to receive medical treatment that could save their lives.

In the wild, many animals starve to death, die of fatal injuries, and rarely, if ever, live anywhere close to their potential life-spans. Animals slowing down in their older age will most likely be eaten by something else.

Dogs are social creatures by nature, and most of them have no trouble at all integrating socially with humans. Is it logical to assume that a dog must be suffering because its social needs are met by humans instead of other dogs?

Wild canines also have social structures that would make ARA’s hair stand up on end if they saw it repeated in the human home: Lower members of the pack are not allowed to eat until the alpha finishes. The comfiest resting spots go to the alphas. Lower members may get so stressed they leave – IE, run away from – the pack.

It is demonstratively false that a ‘natural environment’ is always best for an animal’s health and well-being. Therefore, this logic fails.

P: Some people have been seen mistreating their animals and livestock.
C: All or most people mistreat their animals.

This is what is known as a “hasty generalization.” Let’s put it this way:

P: Jan wears a plaid jacket to school.
C: All or most students wear plaid jackets to school.

We can’t assume that most students wear plaid jackets because Jan wears a plaid jacket! The logic now fails.

P1: All companion animals under human care are suffering in some way.
P2: Euthanizing animals is a painless way to end suffering.
C: Therefore, the best/only option is to put them all to sleep.

Here we have a premise that once again begs the question: that companion animals under human care are somehow “suffering.” Exactly how a dog or cat who has a comfortable home and receives three square meals a day can be said to be “suffering” (especially more than an animal would be “suffering” in the wild) has never been satisfactorily answered.

The second premise is (usually) true. But with the first premise begging the question, the conclusion is dodgy at best. The conclusion also begs the question by assuming that euthanasia is the best or only option.

P1: Bill says that PeTA’s killed most of the animals they took in last year.
P2: Bill is anti-PeTA.
C: Bill is being dishonest/is repeating misinformation.

This is an ad hominem attack: the assertion is assumed to be false because of the identity of the person presenting it. Let’s look at it this way.

P1: Lucy says pumpkin and squash are fruits, not vegetables.
P2: Lucy is a rival in the giant pumpkin contest and only started gardening this year.
C: Lucy must be lying/incorrect.

And yes, what they say about the animals is true.

P: Humans do not possess specific physical attributes (claws, sharp teeth) possessed by “true” predatorial animals.
C: Humans are not natural predators.

This logic is erroneous in that it assumes that certain physical attributes are necessary to be a “true” predator. We can easily turn this flawed logic on its head by representing it this way:

P: Bats do not possess feathers, which are required for every other warm-blooded animal to fly.
C: It is not natural for bats to fly.

Both premises ignore the fact that both creatures have attributes that render claws, fangs, and feathers unnecessary.

On the side, it should be noted that humans’ forward-facing eyes – very much a predatorial feature – and flexible fingers make them extremely suited for eating insects, as do primates such as chimpanzees. (Also, insects are often very safe to eat raw!) The advanced intelligence of the human mind makes it the next logical step to take down larger prey.

Also, chimpanzees hunt and kill colobus monkeys in the wild. They do not use claws or fangs to down their prey; they flail it to death against the ground or a tree limb. No claws or fangs required.

P1: Chimpanzees and gorillas eat mainly fruits and leaves.
P2: Humans are closely related to chimpanzees and gorillas.
C: Humans should eat mainly fruits and leaves.

First of all, we know that chimpanzees eat a significant amount of meat. Termites, birds, eggs, and small monkeys make up significant portions of a chimp’s menu.

Secondly, this is a false analogy. It does not necessarily follow that related species have identical nutritional requirements. Consider the following:

P1: Fruit bats eat fruit.
P2: Vampire bats are related to fruit bats.
C: Vampire bats should eat fruit.

The concept that vampire bats should eat fruit instead of blood is demonstratively false.

P: Humans do not find carrion appetizing.
C: Humans cannot be natural meat-eaters.

Many predators will not touch carrion. The conclusion is fallacious. Time to burn down this straw man:

P: Humans do not find rotting salad/someone’s lawn/a potted cactus appetizing.
C: Humans cannot be natural plant-eaters.

So are we gonna chuck the broccoli because of the fact that we don’t drool at the sight of a verdant golf course or a rotting squash? Unlikely! Thus we prove the first assertion illogical.

P: Humans do not daydream about killing animals.
C: Humans cannot be natural predators.

Another question-begger: how do we know that “natural predators” daydream about killing? We don’t. It also assumes that it’s natural to daydream about “natural” behavior. Is it? Just for grins and giggles, let’s put it this way:

P: Humans do not daydream about taking a crap or picking their noses.
C: It cannot be natural for humans to take a crap or pick their noses.

P: A child turned loose with a small animal will not instinctively kill the animal and eat it.
C: We cannot be natural predators.

This conclusion ignores the fact that many young predators must be taught to hunt by its parents. An untaught kitten won’t eat a mouse; it’ll bat it around and play with it. Teach a child to hunt, and you bet that kid is gonna hunt.

P: We cannot eat meat without cooking it first.
C: We cannot be natural predators.

People tout this while chowing down on grains and legumes as an alternate protein source. Funny thing is, our jaws can work through raw meat quite well, while legumes and grains must be cooked and/or crushed once they are dried. (And they dry extremely quickly once they reach maturity.) Our jaws cannot suitably work through the tough seeds.

The widespread consumption of grains is only a recent addition to the human lifestyle. Before the advent of cooking, agriculture, and milling devices, these grains would have been useless.

Thousands of years of cooking has taken the edge off our immune systems somewhat, but the human body can still easily digest raw meat. Can we say the same for a cup of uncooked beans or wheat?

Archeological evidence has shown that people were hunters long before they were farmers. Studies of human stools show that when people did eat seeds, they went undigested through the human body. Furthermore, humans can and do eat raw meat – and survive! There are many dishes that people enjoy today that use raw meat.

P: Albert Einstein was a vegetarian.
C: Vegetarianism is superior.

…Or replace Einstein with any famous figure who was a vegan/vegetarian.

This is an Appeal to Authority. It’s persuasive, but fallacious. Einstein was a physicist, not a dietitian. He ate an omnivorous diet for most of his life and did his best work while he still ate meat. He only switched a scant few years before he died.

Another figure often cited is Ghandi. Ghandi did not eat meat for cultural reasons, being of the Jain sect. He didn’t care if you chose to eat meat or not. For a time he even switched to an omnivorous diet.

Just because a famous person has brilliant ideas in one field doesn’t mean that all are correct. Brilliant men even produce humdingers in their own fields: Nicola Tesla was a brilliant man who made many contributions to science. Yet he didn’t have a lot of sense when it came to the way electricity worked – in fact, he was downright hostile toward Einstein’s theory of matter and energy!

P: If you do not stop using animals, activists will sabotage you.
C: We must stop using animals.

This is an ad baculum attack (Appeal to Force). It’s been a favorite tool of bullies and terrorists throughout the years. There is no rational basis behind it: only that if you do not agree with what the opposition is trying to force down your throat, they will beat you up until you do.

Let’s put it this way:

P: If you do not give your lunch money to the bully, he will beat you up.
C: You must give your lunch money to the bully.

LIGHTNING ROUND!

“A” is for Assertion, “R” is for Response.

A: If you claim to love animals and eat meat, you are a hypocrite.
R: If you claim to love plants and flowers and eat your vegetables, you are a hypocrite.
(Think about it.)

A: Violence toward animals leads to violence toward humans.
R: Psychopaths may start out by torturing animals – but they were screwed up to begin with. Excessively violent people will take out their aggressions on anything in their path, but were already screwed up to begin with. A NORMAL human will draw a clear line between killing animals and humans.

A: Teaching children compassion toward animals will encourage compassion toward humans.
R: Not necessarily. Part of human nature is to draw us/them boundaries. It’s what allowed early humans to be sympathetic to their own tribe while wiping out a competing tribe. A human taught compassion toward animals may still lump other humans into the “them” category. This actually happens all the time in practice.

A: Animals value their lives as much as humans do.
R: Call me again when you find a non-human animal who doesn’t want to die because he wants to compose a masterpiece or go on a cruise when he retires.