Start Date: July 16, 2002 Finish Date: July 16, 2002

Introduction

     In this critique, I attack a piece written by Diane Dew where she defends her opinions about Animal Rights. While reading this, I was, well, largely appalled. I wasn't so much offended by her arguments for the exploitation by animals, so much as I was offended by her general lack of common sense and basic reasoning abilities. I'm pretty sure that if you had told her that the world was round, she might as well respond, "How can that be so if the HORIZON is FLAT!?" And then she'd mumble a Bible verse at you, talk about how she was persecuted, and then walk around, as if she was going to be an example for the new world.

     What are the arguments that she makes against Animal Rights? Well, in this piece.... In regard to animals who are tortured and abused, she says, "It's not abuse, but a display of physical talent and endurance." Whoa, bravo... I wouldn't be able to reread that line without dying from choking on laughter. What else does she say? When an Animal Rights activist talks about how animals are exploited for greed, Dew replies, "Human trapeze artists, clowns, and others in the circus perform 'for the greed of circus heads.' Doesn't make what they do immoral." The Animal Rights activist says, "Tell me, please, why you can feel so lightly about a circus or carnival that would force a tiger or lion to jump through a hoop of fire, when naturally he would run from it in terror?" And, Dew responds naturally, "So you're saying that learning to face our fears is not good?" I imagine anyone reading this will think that Dew possibly couldn't be serious, that her website was a joke to show the absurdity that arises from religious infection. But, no, I believe she was quite serious.

     In regard to elephants being abused: "An elephant's skin is thick and tough - it does not feel the same as humans." In regard to tigers in cages when they can't even turn around: "That is a temporary confinement. We "confine" our infants the same, when we place them in a car seat." In regards to the misery of the animals: "How do you know this? Have you talked with them?" In regards to animals dying sick and alone: "So do many elderly humans." I imagine that Animal Rights activists have no problem arguing with this logic. It would take me a total of 23 and a half seconds for me to debunk all of the arguments of Dew in this one piece. But, doing that would be too easy, too quick, to simple. So, I thought, what would be the most interesting and intriguing way to reply to Dew's remarks? Hhhhhhmmmmm......

A Little Bit of Parody

A lash cut salt into wounds; the literal "hot seat" gave electric shocks until prisoners talked. Nazis also used an electric helmet that burned the ears of the victims. ["This Must Not Happen Again!: The Black Book of Fascist Horror," by Clark Kinnaird, copyright 1945, by Pilot Press, page 37.]

Many people perform daring acts. It's not abuse, but a display of physical talent and endurance.

Unless it is understood that the Germans made their heinousities as well as their war profitable they are incomprehensible. The racial laws enacted by the Hitler government in 1933 had a triple purpose. They provided the excuse and device for the expropriating or forced sale at a fraction of their value of the factories, businesses and other valuable properties of Jews. (Naturally, the best of these became the loot of members of the inner ring controlling the government.) They provided slave-labor for factories; for it was the practice from the beginning to compel inmates of concentration camps to work for little or nothing. [The Nazis document their exploitation of slave-workers from twenty-five countries (their own figure) in brochures which the Party distributed among its followers in praise of its achievement in providing all Germany, whether great industry such as Krupp, I.G. Farben or Siemens, or individual householder, with foreign labor. These make it plain on one in Germany outside of a booby-hatch could have been in ignorance of the slave-labor system. Probably none who could take advantage of it failed to do so.] Finally, they provided the means for the extermination of hundreds of thousands of persons in accordance with the Master Plan of the Permanent War. ["This Must Not Happen Again!: The Black Book of Fascist Horror," by Clark Kinnaird, copyright 1945, by Pilot Press, page 23.]

Capitalists and investors work for "the greed of wealth." Doesn't make what they do immoral.

The inventor of the V-1 and V-2 which killed so many defenseless men, women and children in the Netherlands, Belgium and England, similarly expressed disappointment that Germany had not had time to use a more fearful V-3, which was designed to reach the United States. ["This Must Not Happen Again!: The Black Book of Fascist Horror," by Clark Kinnaird, copyright 1945, by Pilot Press, page 12.]

So you're saying that learning to face our fears is not good?

Buchenwald is about four miles from Weimar, home of Goethe and a shrine of German culture. Buchenwald was built as a torture and murder camp shortly after the Nazis came to power. Tens of thousands passed through its indescribable cruelties to death. ["This Must Not Happen Again!: The Black Book of Fascist Horror," by Clark Kinnaird, copyright 1945, by Pilot Press, page 22.]

That is a temporary confinement. We "confine" our infants the same, when we place them in a car seat.

The kind of professers is indicated by the psychological tortures the professors devised for Norwegians. A prisoner was subjected alternately to "dark" and "hot rooms." When given the dark cell treatment, he was confined without any illumination for several days, then was forced to look into extremely strong beams of light. The "hot" room was an enclosure without ventilation in which the prisoner could neither stand nor sit. ["This Must Not Happen Again!: The Black Book of Fascist Horror," by Clark Kinnaird, copyright 1945, by Pilot Press, page 66.]

How do you know this harmed them? Have you talked with them?

Madrid became the laboratory, Spanish men, women and children, the guinea pigs, for both German and Italian fliers in the coming World War II. The Fascist navies also were given opportunities for experimentation. For example, at Guernica, Spanish seaside resort, German warships closed in and blasted away in a demonstration of naval guns as modern support to artillery for land forces, that washed the pleasure beaches with blood. Hundreds of children were killed by Nazi practise-bombings in Spanish cities. ["This Must Not Happen Again!: The Black Book of Fascist Horror," by Clark Kinnaird, copyright 1945, by Pilot Press, page 35.]

So do many elderly humans die everyday too.

Conclusion

     Now, wasn't that far much more intriguing than simply refuting her arguments? Well, first, what was the point I was trying to demonstrate in this critique? I was trying to demonstrate that Diane Dew's defense of killing animals is, in fact, quite capable of defending the mass murder of human beings that occurred in Nazi concentration camps. This is a very significant fact. If someone says, "It is immoral to abort an unborn fetus, because anything that helps a woman in need is immoral," then their argument similarly justifies refusing medical treatment to diseased women. Now, what if someone said, "Exploiting animals is not bad because they are learning to face their fears," (i.e. Diane Dew) then it would be justified in exploiting humans because they are learning to face their fears. If we are so sure and confident that the Jewish Holocaust was cruel, brutal, and vicious, then any reason that would justify it (i.e. Diane Dew's reasons) must be disregarded as founded in ill-reasoning and a real lack of humanity.

Punkerslut,

join the punkerslut.com mailing list!

copyleft notice and responsibility disclaimer