Monday, February 26, 2007

Eatery builds 123 pound burger

Now, if this story isn't enough to get vegan panties all in a bundle, then I don't know what is. It does look tasty, though it would take a few beers to wash it down. I'm eager to see if any pro-veg blogs or boards offer up any whining.

Sunday, February 25, 2007

PeTA: Masters of the art of deception

The folks at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA) seem to have made deception into a higher art form. PeTA is, of course, known for its deceptive and hyperbolic propaganda, but I think a new low in deceit may have been reached here, even for them. PeTA recently released an "undercover" video in which they claim to expose "cruelty" at a South Carolina monastery that produces eggs. However, according to a report from a Charleston, S.C. TV station, the PeTA video is not completely what it seems to be because PeTA included footage in the video that was not shot at the monastery's farm. This report can be read, and watched, here.
In this report, PeTA vice president Bruce Freidrich claims that there was no intentional deception because the narrative claims that not all footage was shot at the monastery. However, that doesn't wash with Doug Furguson, Professor of Communication at the college of Charleston, and it doesn't wash with me either. I believe Professor Furguson is correct when he accuses PeTA of intentional deception to add shock value. It seems to me to be highly intellectually dishonest to be adding footage that is, in fact, not really relevant to the discussion at hand, in this case what is, or is not, going on at the abbey's farm, NOT at another location. At the very least it is a type of red herring or strawman fallacy, intended to distract the viewer from what the abbey may, or may not be doing. At the very worst it is, as Professor Furguson pointed out, a cowardly attempt to deceive and add cheap shock value. Given PeTA's track record, I leave that call up to the reader. I know where I stand. All of this, of course, begs the question: If PeTA has engaged in these kind of questionable tactics here, how is the public to trust them on other similar matters? How do we know any of their other videos, from "Meet Your Meat" to their undercover videos at Covance laboratories are fully intellectually honest either? Kudos to the reporter, Ms. Conant, and Professor Furguson for calling PeTA out.

Saturday, February 24, 2007


Hi and welcome to The Speciesist's Corner. Thanks for stopping by. The mission of this blog is to expose and debunk the inane drivel of the animal rights ( AR ) movement. The AR movement is not what many people think it is. It is NOT the same as the sensible animal welfare that most of us believe in. Animal rights does not simply seek to make life better for animals. It is a movement that is based upon radical, extremist thinking that promotes the idea that animals are entitled to the same basic rights as humans. The most radical fringe of the AR movement has as its stated goals, the abolition of the human/animal relationship as we know it, and have known it, for thousands of years. I assume that most readers have basic knowledge of the difference between animal rights and animal welfare. Such knowledge is crucial in fully understanding and thinking critically about this debate. If you are unsure of the differences, an excellent summary can be found here.
My background is that of an avid outdoorsman and as one who is educated in the natural resource sciences, so my primary focus will be on the effect of AR on hunting and fishing. Since AR is such a multi-faceted subject, however, I will cover many other aspects as well. I'll be discussing scientific research using animals (a.k.a. "vivisection" in AR-speak), agriculture, and pets. We'll discuss the inherently flawed logic that AR is based upon, and expose the dark, criminal undercurrent that exists in the most lunatic fringe of the AR movement. We'll look at the dishonesty, half-truths and outright lies used by AR groups in their propaganda and see what all this means to our cherished personal freedoms.

What's In A Name?

You may be wondering what the title "The Speciesist's Corner" means. "Speciesism" is a term used by animal rights advocates ( ARAs ) to describe the supposed prejudice mankind has in using other animals for his own purpose, and putting his interests above the interests of other species. For example, if you believe that it is acceptable to use laboratory rats in experiments to find answers about AIDS or cancer, you are a "speciesist". To the AR mind, "speciesism" is a sin that is as odious as racism or sexism. Close scrutiny, however, reveals just what a vacuous and flatulent concept "speciesism" really is. In reality, there is no such thing as a species that DOESN'T practice "speciesism", because it is essential to the survival of a species to do so! Ironically, the only species that shows any kind consistent altruism for other species is Homo sapiens, the very species ARAs are most critical of. Even ARAs practice "speciesism" to one degree or another, though few will admit to their own hypocrisy. "Speciesist" is a title I wear as a badge of honor. We'll discuss more about "speciesism" in greater depth, and why it so patently illogical at a later time.