[Leica] Slides the cat has gone to kitty heaven

[sam at osheaven.net (Sam)]

I didn't read anything that was not easy to refute. Singer's statement 
"There are two basic views that support cruelty [neither support 
cruelty. That is Singer's 'helpful' interpretation] to animals: either 
you accept the Aristotelian view that the universe has a purpose and the 
less rational are here to serve the more rational, or you believe the 
Judeo-Christian view that God has given us dominion over the world" is 
limited in that he omits the notion of rational self-preservation, nor 
does he consider willed consequence vs unintentional consequence. In 
fact, to maintain his thesis he is forced to avoid rationality. A cynic 
might conclude that he must avoid rationality to sustain his thought. 
What he has done is to define the world by his own whim and has squeezed 
a "philosophy" out of it. Difficult to do, but not convincing.

Sam S



Saganich, Christopher/Medical Physics wrote:

>New Topic - Peter Singer
>
>http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1175/1_32/53479124/p1/article.jhtml?term=
>
>Always good for some debate.  Not easy to refute his arguments, from a philosophical perspective anyway.
>
>
>Chris Saganich
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: lug-bounces+saganicc=mskcc.org@leica-users.org [mailto:lug-bounces+saganicc=mskcc.org@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of B. D. Colen
>Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 1:49 PM
>To: 'Leica Users Group'
>Subject: RE: [Leica] Slides the cat has gone to kitty heaven
>
>First, Sam, I do not believe in "animal rights," other than believing
>that animals have the 'right' not to be abused. Second, I think that
>spending $5,000 on an operation for a pet is a bit nuts. Third, I have
>two dogs and two cats, and am undoubtedly too devoted to the dogs and
>one of the cats - the other is a nasty pest who has been foisted on me
>;-)  However, I also believe that -
>
>As Doug notes, expending money and emotions on pets does not exclude
>expending both on improving the lot of humans; 
>
>The fact that some people treat their pets better than some other people
>treat their children suggests that some people should have children, not
>that some people shouldn't have pets;
>
>It takes far more effort, commitment, and risk to oneself to travel to
>Africa to photograph the fly covered child - even if one is returning to
>a Volvo and pet - than it does to write a check to Save The Children;
>
>While I wonder what magnet is buried beneath the moral compass of those
>who devote their lives to the welfare of chickens, literally equating
>pigs and human children, I also wonder about those who make sweeping
>moral judgments about people devoted to pets. Mankind, after all, has
>had pets of one sort or another almost as long there has been mankind.
>And there has also been poverty and injustice all that time. Somehow, I
>don't think one is in any way the cause of the other.
>
>B. D.
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org
>[mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
>Sam
>Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 12:31 PM
>To: Leica Users Group
>Subject: Re: [Leica] Slides the cat has gone to kitty heaven
>
>
>I did not say they were not giving. I implied the $5000 pet operation is
>
>immoral because it's being spent on a beast rather than a human being. A
>
>beast who exists merely to amuse its owners. I would further state that 
>bloated babies have a moral right to the $5000 in lieu of the beast.
>
>Sam S
>
>
>
>Douglas M. Sharp wrote:
>
>  
>
>>...
>>I'm sure whoever can afford $5000 for a vet and drive a Volvo is
>>financially well enough off to donate to charities too. Who says
>>that the pet owners are not giving too, does one exclude the other ??
>>Douglas
>>
>>
>>Sam schrieb:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>To some, the death of a pet is akin to the death of a child, and to
>>>others the emotional resources and money spent on animals is a  
>>>scandal. If the time and energy spent taking care of pets was 
>>>expended on visiting the abandoned sick and aged, or the money spent 
>>>on having a pet operated on was paid into the medical account of an 
>>>uninsured sick and needy human being, so much suffering could be 
>>>alleviated. It baffles me when someone fains concern (many times via 
>>>documentary photography) for, example, a bloated, fly covered, 
>>>starving African child, and then rushes in the Volvo to the Vets to 
>>>have the dog operated on for cancer at a cost of $5,000. Vanity pets 
>>>have no place in a world of suffering human beings.
>>>
>>>Sam S
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Leica Users Group.
>>>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>_______________________________________________
>Leica Users Group.
>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>_______________________________________________
>Leica Users Group.
>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
> 
>     =====================================================================
>     
>     Please note that this e-mail and any files transmitted with it may be 
>     privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure under 
>     applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended 
>     recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this 
>     message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 
>     reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this 
>     communication or any of its attachments is strictly prohibited.  If 
>     you have received this communication in error, please notify the 
>     sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting this 
>     message, any attachments, and all copies and backups from your 
>     computer.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Leica Users Group.
>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
>  
>