Start Date: March 2, 2002 Finish Date: March 2, 2002

"...diet advice, usually wishing me to restrict myself to vegetable proteins rather than animal proteins, based on the notion that human beings have the intelligence to choose to eat soy beans in preference to cattle but wolves can't -- and this superior human reasoning ability is a reason to consider animals such as wolves our equals."

     Based on the notion that humans have the intelligence to eat vegetable proteins? Perhaps Schulman missed a day when in third grade, but when someone recommends a Vegetarian diet, it is not based on one's intelligence to be able to choose. It is based on the health of a Vegetarian diet which is undeniable.

"Why doesn't it mean something to the advocates of animal rights that none of the animals they wish to place in contention for having rights is capable of even joining this discussion on their own behalf? They can't give testimony or answer questions. Doesn't that observation have impact?"

     It is rather due to the fact that non-human animals are incapable of communicating openly with humans; although some non-human animals, such as apes and primates, are capable of using sign language with humans. Perhaps it is rather Schulman's complete incapability of observing natural phenomena properly.

"An animal-rights advocate is in the position of a lawyer bringing a case to court, with a species of animal or representative of that species as the client. A petition for animal rights is, in effect, a petition for emancipation for species, and members of species, that are currently the legal wards of mankind at best -- and our outright property without proof there is even standing to consider them as candidates for a conservatorship. It is a case which is brought by the lawyer without either request or even understanding by the client. Moreover, even if we could somehow raise the intelligence and communication abilities of an animal to make it cognizant of the possibility, we don't even know whether their natural metaphysics would prefer dominion over themselves or continued rule by mankind, their 'gods.'"

     To quote a Harvard student in regards to the slavery of African humans, "On the whole, since it is evident beyond all controversy that the removal of the Africans, from the state of brutality, wretchedness and misery, in which they are at home so deeply involved, to this land of light, humanity and Christian knowledge, is to them so great a blessing; however faulty any individuals may have been in point of unnecessary cruelty, practised in this business; that, whether the general state of subordination here, which is a necessary consequence of their removal, be agreeable to the law of nature; can by no means longer remain a question." ["On the Legality of Enslaving the Africans," by a Harvard student; quoted in Louis Chuames, 'Racial Thought in America' (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1969), pp. 154-156.]

     In the early 1800's, African humans could not raise a case for their rights. It was done for them by men and women like Abraham Lincoln, Captain John Brown, Henry David Thoreau, Robert Green Ingersoll, and Harriet Beecher Stowe. These were all white humans, not black humans. Furthermore, I seriously doubt that any animal could wish to attain its status of being tortured, just as I doubt any African human could wish to attain its status of miserable slavery.

"First up would be the question of the court's jurisdiction -- and it is undisputed that mankind rules this planet. There is nothing to even question our jurisdiction except another one of our own species -- and that fact reinforces, rather than undercuts, the unquestioned jurisdiction of mankind in deciding any question of animal rights."

     Again, according to the reasoning of Schulman, African humans deserve no rights as they could not question the court system and the government that enslaved them.

"Next up is the question of standing -- being able to go into court and make a claim for emancipation on one's own behalf in the first place -- and that goes to the question of competence. We would need a competency hearing to begin a trial of emancipation. A human judge is going to come up with the decisive criteria because there's no other life form we can ask to present a friend-of-the-court brief. The competency hearing prior to an emancipation hearing has to pass human-derived criteria because there aren't any other criteria being offered.

"And that's where we have an impossible problem. Find me another species whom we can ask and we can have a controversy about the standards we will use in a proposed trial of animal rights -- or even conservatorship beyond being mere property. A controversy requires two or more parties. There is only one species capable of taking up the question. The very thing the animal-rights advocate wants to challenge -- that human beings have a monopoly on rights and adjudication of rights -- has no being affected by the outcome even laying claim to a contest.

"That ends the question of standing for a species, or a member of a species, of animal before it starts."

     The fact that an animal does not publicly fight back against animal abusers and voice their opinion is not in any way proof that they do not deserve rights. This is something that even non-Vegetarianism can admit. What can be said about the plight of prisoners? For hundreds of years they have been beaten and abused in prisoners by vicious guards and wardens. Who was there to appeal for their rights? Certainly nobody would let the prisoners speak for themselves. Ethical reformers had to work for reform in prisons. Such ethical reformers include Henry Stephens Salt. What can also be said of insane individuals who live in insane asylums? They certainly cannot fight for their rights. Or what can be said of human infants? I would be incredibly surprised if a human infant were to argue for their right to existence. However, the fact remains the same: whether or not you are physically capable of arguing for your rights is certainly no reason to deprive or grant an individual their rights.

"Given that there are no animals contesting their status as inferiors to mankind, where can a human advocate of animal emancipation possibly go from there?

"I see only one answer to that question: an attack on the rights of man for no reason other than to oppose the rights of man. It is not for the sake of animal elevation that animal rights is proposed. It is the degradation, population reduction, disempowerment, starvation, and state domination of human beings that is the only possible agenda of animal-rights advocates. They don't love animals. They hate men. That's what I said in my first article. My blowing the cover of their fraud is why they hate me and call me every name in the book."

     This is nothing but childish babbling. I doubt a fourth grader could be as whiny. Of course, mister Schulman is not a friend of logic, nor is he an advocate of reasoning or evidence. If he advocated evidence, he may like to bring some of it up to aid these claims. But, as I stated, he is certainly not Humanitarian, and he's most definitely not a Rationalist. When mister Schulman stated that Vegetarians are Vegetarians because they hate humans and want to deprive humans of rights, my first response was not, "Oh, no! My cover has been blown!" In fact, the very assertion is laughable! Taking mister Schulman seriously, however, is an even more difficult task. I've read many essays that were satires and I could easily tell that they were fake or in mockery of something. I've yet to decide if Schulman is sincere in his claims, or if he enjoys writing for the sake of comedy. Of course, how ought I respond to this drivel? He stated that Vegetarians don't love animals and that they hate humans. Even the average human can rationalize that Vegetarians are Vegetarians for the sake of other animals. I mean, this is common sense.

     Perhaps Schulman would enjoy to explain the period of Benjamin Franklin's life when he was a Vegetarian. Did Franklin oppose the rights of animals? Certainly not. Although he did not last as a Vegetarian, he certainly was a Vegetarian for a period of time yet in that period of time, he did not hold the position of Vegetarianism to oppose the rights of humans. Thomas Paine acknowledged the rights of non-humans and humans. Robert Green Ingersoll is candid in stating, "Thomas Paine: With his name left out, the history of liberty cannot be written." [On Thomas Paine, by Ingersoll, 1870.] And what has Paine given oath to? "I believe the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy." [The Age of Reason, by Thomas Paine, chapter 1.] Thomas Paine was the only Founding Father to oppose Racism, Sexism, and slavery. His book The Rights of Man was the most powerful defense of the liberty of human beings. And yet, in his oath to what he believes, in one sentence he states that he believes in the equality of man, that we ought to do justice, love mercy, and make our fellow-creatures happy. He desired to free men from the chains of supertition, Monarchy, and slavery. If a man were to call Paine an opposer of human rights, they would be nothing short of uneducated.

"You don't believe me? David Foreman of Earth First!, in Confessions of an Eco-Warrior, argued: 'Human suffering resulting from drought and famine in Ethiopia is tragic, yes, but the destruction there of other creatures and habitat is even more tragic.' Mr. Foreman and his ilk don't want animals elevated to the level of humans. He wants humans degraded below the level of animals. He is a human quisling, an enemy of our entire species. Those who side with him, not understanding the meaning or consequences of their position, are pawns in a war. They are either children, whom we don't expect to know better yet, or they are useful idiots who are being duped."

     Perhaps Schulman is incredibly lacking in reading and comprehension skills, but Dave Foreman just said that human suffering resulting from drought and famine in Ethiopia is tragic! This is fifth grade material. Find a child in fifth grade. Read them this sentence, "Human suffering resulting from drought and famine in Ethiopia is tragic." Ask them if they think the person who said it is opposed to Human Rights. Perhaps you can be your own judge. Would somebody unsympathetic to Human Rights call human suffering tragic? Also, a bit of information to mister Schulman's reasoning abilities: to elevate an animal to human standards and to downgrade a human to animal standards are technically the same thing. ("What? You mean half of the American public have an average intelligence!?")

"Grown-ups who understand the issue and still prefer animals to men are evil. If you don't believe me on this, ask them a question I've heard Dennis Prager ask his radio listeners. Ask them if they had to choose between saving a drowning baby and saving their pet cat or dog, which they would choose to save first. If they answer any other way than that they would immediately choose saving the baby first, I suggest telling your kids to scream for help if they ever encounter this monster again. They are psychopaths, not to be trusted, and I'm not kidding."

     There are many individuals who have called me evil. I've yet to lose a minute of sleep because of this insult. It seems childish to even say that. Of course, Schulman is making a misstatement. I don't prefer animals to men. I equalize them, giving them both equal consideration of their interests. What would constitute as a psychopath is someone with a mental deficiency or someone who enjoys reading Schulman's materials... or believing them, anyway. And you can educate you child to scream if they ever see Animal Rights advocates ("monsters"), but I'll make sure to educate my children in recognizing bad arguments and seeking truth.

"If you find you're living in a community with a lot of these moral cripples, I suggest moving someplace safer as soon as the opportunity presents itself. You might try looking on the 2000 presidential election map for the red areas. Your chances are better there.

"So, for the sake of not having to debate this anymore, with countless people who don't have any practice in the use and understanding of logical argument, let me now, off the top of my head, present fifty observable activities in which human beings engage that human beings have not observed in any other species. And before you argue with me that you dressed up your cat in human clothes for a fashion show, I mean in all cases: in a state of nature, without human intervention."

[Insert a list of 50, very random activities that Schulman picked out of a hat.]

     This list of things that humans can do that animals cannot do is hilarious! In all honest recommendations, I think Schulman would have been more productive watching cars on the highway. I don't think someone will point to number 12 and say, "Oooo, human can do whale watching. Oh, that's it. Now I know the Animal Rights movement is foolish!" I seriously don't think any Vegetarian point to number 34 and say, "Wow! Humans can go on vacations! That's it, let me at that steak!" Maybe someone will point to 43 and say, "I'm a human and I can do mailing and shipping! I never knew I was so advanced; so advanced that humans deserve rights and animals do not! Whoopee!" The rest of the list is simply laughable. Obviously Schulman did not take biology class when he went to junior highschool. Number 49 (that animals don't try to avoid the spread of natural diseases) is wrong: animals have been known to seperate themselves from groups when they become sick. I also find number 25 - the practice of religion - to be a reason why humans lag behind in civilization.

"For those of you who can't understand the argument any other way, because these other species don't have the innate ability to engage in any of these activities, all other species of animals known to mankind are inferior to us and don't have rights."

     Apparently Schulman completely lacks the knowledge to comprehend that the point of Animal Rights is not based on capability of skill, but capability of pain. Because an animal is capable of feeling suffering, I empathize with it. I feel that all animals - regardless of race, gender, sexuality or species - are equal, because they can all feel pain and suffering. The fact that an animal cannot send something through UPS does not make me want to run out and have a hamburger, all the while saying "to hell with Animal Rights!" The fact that someone may be superior to another is not at all a reason why they deserve no rights. What can be said of those confined to wheel chairs? Hitler's sole purpose was to eradicate those who are inferior: in doing so he killed crippled humans and Jews. Anyone can use Schulman's logic to justify hate. And it isn't even original. People have been using the superiority argument for centuries to further all sorts of sick causes. "White humans write better poetry and literature, and therefore African humans do not deserve the same rights." Or "Men are stronger and smarter, and therefore females do not deserve the same rights." Or "Adults are old and smart, and therefore children do not deserve the same rights." The same line of superiority has been used by every vice-filled, hateful tyrant to justify some cruel ideology. In Schulman's case, it is the consumption of meat.

Punkerslut,

join the punkerslut.com mailing list!

copyleft notice and responsibility disclaimer