Sign This Petition

On February 02 2009 04:54 FragKrag wrote:
It's not going to do anything, and what's wrong with breeding dogs/cats for furs? -_-

As long if you're not poaching (dogs and cats lol), it's completely fine by my book.

On February 02 2009 04:55 theonemephisto wrote:
Somehow I doubt that the Chinese (or anyone else) are skinning animals ALIVE for their fur. That just seems inefficient. I mean, I doubt that people are actually going out of their way in order to cause cruelty to animals (well, okay, some people probably are, but not on a large scale), and I doubt that skinning a cat or dog alive could be more cost-efficient than killing it first.

And really, I don't see why we should be against cat and dog fur in products and not against any other animal's skin. At least apply standards evenly, why do cats and dogs deserve so much protection over beavers, cows, or any other animal?

And this won't ever get anything accomplished.

So yea, no.

On February 02 2009 05:01 Frits wrote:
Yeah let's demonize people who barely make a living as it is. Stop enforcing western morals on people who don't get to go to school, follow an education and drive a fat american car. You're a goddamned hero alright.

On February 02 2009 04:58 PH wrote:

Actually, I imagine it would be easier and cheaper to skin an animal while it's still alive than to kill it first. That way, you don't need to apply any poison or waste a bullet or go through the effort of slitting an artery.

You just beat it a couple times and peel it right off. (:

On February 02 2009 05:09 Falcynn wrote:

...I realize that's probably sarcasm, but I have to agree that it still seems inefficient to beat an animal into unconsciousness before skinning them.

Seems like you'd save a lot more time by just slitting their throat than beating them.

On February 02 2009 05:06 anderoo wrote:


Yeah what was I thinking, they're poor so they should be allowed to smack living animals on the ground like they're beating out a rug while everyone cheers and watches. Just watch the video, I really badly want to be a superhero.

On February 02 2009 05:29 Dgtl wrote:
HOW THE FUCK WOULD YOU LIKE IF YOU WERE BEAT THEN SKINNED ALIVE????
And all the people that are saying "Oh, well those people who are poor will now be even more poor if this stop" are stupid. They could get jobs making fake fur because if this is shut down then there will be a higher demand for fake fur creating other jobs for those people.

On February 02 2009 05:29 Dgtl wrote:
HOW THE FUCK WOULD YOU LIKE IF YOU WERE BEAT THEN SKINNED ALIVE????
And all the people that are saying "Oh, well those people who are poor will now be even more poor if this stop" are stupid. They could get jobs making fake fur because if this is shut down then there will be a higher demand for fake fur creating other jobs for those people.

On February 02 2009 05:29 Frits wrote:


You are in an incredibly easy moral position, you come from a wealthy country where we can afford to ease animal suffering so you think that puts you in a position to tell other populations to sacrifice parts of their lives for your well being? How can you live with that? What have you given up for these people? Can you offer them a new job? Education? Anything? Would you give up your job to ease animal suffering? The only thing you can do to sympathize with the animals is contribute to a better and more fair society in China or stop wearing fur, anything else is short sighted and morally reprehensible.

On February 02 2009 05:34 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
god i hate animal rights nuts

On February 02 2009 05:29 Frits wrote:


You are in an incredibly easy moral position, you come from a wealthy country where we can afford to ease animal suffering so you think that puts you in a position to tell other populations to sacrifice parts of their lives for your well being? How can you live with that? What have you given up for these people? Can you offer them a new job? Education? Anything? Would you give up your job to ease animal suffering? The only thing you can do to sympathize with the animals is contribute to a better and more fair society in China or stop wearing fur, anything else is short sighted and morally reprehensible.

The petition says:
To: The Government of the Peoples Republic of China

Please urgently introduce legislation in China to:

1. Make it illegal to slaughter cats, dogs and other animals by skinning them alive for their fur
2. Protect all animals against mistreatment and cruelty of any nature
3. Ban the export from China of cat and dog fur and any products containing cat or dog fur
4. Ban cat and dog fur from being used wholly or partly in the manufacture of products in China
5. Introduce severe penalties to enforce the legislation

On February 02 2009 05:19 Draconizard wrote:
I approve of the wholesale slaughter of cuddly animals.

On February 02 2009 05:34 anderoo wrote:


How about we just get them to kill the animals as painlessly as in their power before they skin them? The current system of grabbing them by the ankles and then slapping them on the ground until they go into shock and stop fighting back is probably (from my perspective on my ivory tower) not the most humane way to skin an animal



A nut? Yesterday I was just like you not giving a shit about animal rights until a friend linked me to the video. I thought it was pretty disturbing so I had two choices:
1) sign the petition (free, takes 15 seconds)
2) do nothing

so I signed the petition and showed the video to other people

Crazy!

On February 02 2009 05:37 Ancestral wrote:

Signing an online petition is definitely stupid, but you're argument to me is wildly fallacious. They're poor, so they can savagely beat animals when it probably doesn't make them any less poor than if they didn't?

What else should you be allowed to get away with if you're poor, but not if you're rich? Rape? Stealing? Ethnic genocide? Religious persecution? Slavery? A secret police? Those are certainly things that are more likely in poor nations than in rich nations.

There's a difference between being morally relativistic and saying "anything goes." It is well known that humans feel pain, and animals do by the same process. Being poor isn't a free ticket to do anything you want because it's "culturally acceptable."

There are worse things than beating animals, but there are always worse things - rape is worse than stealing, murder is worse than rape. Insulting the op in that way because you think he should be spending his time doing more relevant humanitarian things is silly, maybe he is already doing them.

I'm sure there are things that one can do to contribute to a fairer and better society in China, but for the average citizen I would say there's not much.

Perhaps the op is an emissary for a human rights organization though, I'm not sure.

A nut? Yesterday I was just like you not giving a shit about animal rights until a friend linked me to the video. I thought it was pretty disturbing so I had two choices:
1) sign the petition (free, takes 15 seconds)
2) do nothing

so I signed the petition and showed the video to other people

Crazy!

On February 02 2009 05:34 anderoo wrote:


A nut? Yesterday I was just like you not giving a shit about animal rights until a friend linked me to the video. I thought it was pretty disturbing so I had two choices:
1) sign the petition (free, takes 15 seconds)
2) do nothing

so I signed the petition and showed the video to other people

Crazy!

On February 02 2009 05:57 Frits wrote:


Please don't talk about fallacies when you compare killing animals to rape, genocide and slavery, trust me you don't want to go there. You're completely twisting what Im saying, I never said that they should be allowed to do whatever they want. They're poor, so they shouldn't be held to the morals we hold people in our society, when they're basically living off our demand of fur, it's simply not fair. The fact that what they do is morally reprehensible to us is besides the point. Im not saying that we shouldn't try and put a stop to it, but this is the wrong way to do it when we are a big part of the problem. You can't put a stop to supply when there's a demand. (Surprise surprise people are still dealing drugs all over the world.)

The big problem here is that the OP wants people to sacrifice something to adhere to our code of morality, when we reached that code of morality through a completely different way. Nobody told us to stop killing animals if we needed their fur, and if they did we wouldn't have cared until we could afford a better alternative. Im not making an argument for apathy here, I just think the OP is a short sighted idiot.



Wow Im so surprised you haven't given this an inch of thought. Arguments based on outrage is the #3 most used fallacy by the way.

On February 02 2009 05:57 MasterOfChaos wrote:
On the other hand I find Creationism's zeal disturbing. Of course one has every right to criticize them for their brutal handling of animals. And of course on can demand laws which reduce the brutality. For example we have some laws in Germany which probably would forbid such treatment. Animals are still treated brutally here, but avoiding unnecessary brutality is a good goal.
And why shouldn't people wish that similar laws apply in other countries such as china.
And I dislike your argument which reduces sentinent beings to "property".

On February 02 2009 05:29 Frits wrote:


You are in an incredibly easy moral position, you come from a wealthy country where we can afford to ease animal suffering so you think that puts you in a position to tell other populations to sacrifice parts of their lives for your well being? How can you live with that? What have you given up for these people? Can you offer them a new job? Education? Anything? Would you give up your job to ease animal suffering? The only thing you can do to sympathize with the animals is contribute to a better and more fair society in China or stop wearing fur, anything else is short sighted and morally reprehensible.



If someone skinned me alive I would write an angry message on TL about it in capslock.

I like how you just turn around supply and demand by the way. Instead of blaming the people for demanding fur, let's blame the people who barely make a living off it and tell them to stop caving in to economic demands, and change their jobs creating a somewhat similar kind of supply, and hope that somehow still fills demands. That's not how the economy works.

You aren't in a position to tell them how to live either way, you think the west has ever sacrificed something for their code of morality? We have morals because we can afford to, we never stopped skinning animals because we felt bad for animals, we stopped because we could afford other things, or exploit poor skinners like the ones in China while getting rich ourself.

On February 02 2009 06:21 tec27 wrote:

Animals cannot posess rights and are therefore property. Animals are also not sentient: their existence is essentially based on instinct/stimulus-response. That is the fundamental difference between animals and Man, and the key reason why animals cannot have rights, whereas Man does. As such, people should be free to do with them as they please, since they are property. Petitioning any government to tell people what they can and cannot do with their property is certainly not the proper way of going about things, as if such laws passed, you have now violated others rights for your own personal gain. If I don't agree with you listening to a certain type of music, should I petition the government to ban it? I don't think so, and while the rough handling of animals certainly brings up more emotions, the underlying situation is the same.

On February 02 2009 06:23 ahrara_ wrote:

So if a human being is born mentally retarded, mute, and largely incapable of making rational decisions, we can treat them as property and do with them whatever we like? Moreover, the issue is not sentience. I fail to see how lack of sentience is related to the issue of suffering. This is an entirely arbitrary relationship you're throwing out there that has some intuitive appeal but makes no rational sense whatsoever. Further, if sentience were an issue, why does the lack of it mean less access to rights? Human ethics in general seem to argue that we have an obligation to the less fortunate -- if I am born without feet, I have a reasonable expectation that society provide for me a wheelchair so I can move about. By your logic, my handicap makes me LESS qualified for aid and care from others.

Rather, than sentience, the issue should be of suffering. Lack of sentience doesn't dampen how I experience pain. Even if an animal lacks sentience, it seems to me that he is equally susceptible to pain. Thus, if you're going to argue that there is some kind of fundamental difference between humans and animals that absolve us of responsibility for their pain, that difference has to be biological. You'd need to prove that animals don't experience pain in the way we do -- that it's some unconscious kind of feedback loop. Until you can prove that, it seems to me that we ought to not take the risk of inflicting extraordinary suffering on an animal if we can help it.

On February 02 2009 04:54 FragKrag wrote:
It's not going to do anything, and what's wrong with breeding dogs/cats for furs? -_-

As long if you're not poaching (dogs and cats lol), it's completely fine by my book.

On February 02 2009 06:26 tec27 wrote:

Even a mentally retarded human possesses the ability to make free choices. Whether or not you consider those choices "rational" is irrelevant.

On February 02 2009 06:22 ahrara_ wrote:

Now I am as much of a free market capitalist as any good American, I'm all for free trade and deregulation, and I hate globalization protestors with a passion. But I think it's important to recognize that the price system isn't an ethical system. Profit margins don't account for human, environmental, and animal externalities. By talking about jobs and income as an ethical justification, we strip those people and animals that can't contribute to profit margins of any non-material existence. They become as good as any physical commodity, and just as disposable. It's true that animal rights legislation would probably put human beings out of a job, and we should value human concerns before animals, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't care about animal suffering at all. I see no reason why we can't impose "human feelings" on animals. If there is some kind of biological distinction between animals and humans that makes their pain different than ours, I don't know about it.

On February 02 2009 06:33 tec27 wrote:

So, since you're "as much of a free market capitalist as any good American," you're not very much of one at all, right? Externalities are bullshit. The free market works always. Any case where you say it does not is either A) a property rights issue that is not dealt with at the moment because we don't have a free market, but rather a managed economy, or B) something that you disagree with personally, but is in fact not a violation of anyone's rights. Environmental issues tend to fall under A, and human/animal rights issues tend to fall under B (assuming for "human rights" you are talking about things like minimum wage/working condition things). We shouldn't enact legislation based on its effects to humans, we should enact legislation based on its ethical backing. To do anything less is to favor one group over another. And, as I already stated, animals have no rights and are therefore property, so there is no ethical backing for any "animal rights" legislation.

On February 02 2009 06:41 ahrara_ wrote:

your entire argument, everything you've posted, is circular. you claim that free market always works because every instance of the free market not working is because i'm wrong. i'm wrong because you arbitrarily assume a.) animals aren't sentient, b.) lack of sentience absolves animals of any rights. i don't know what i'm supposed to say to this. you win?

On February 02 2009 06:26 tec27 wrote:

Even a mentally retarded human possesses the ability to make free choices. Whether or not you consider those choices "rational" is irrelevant. The sentience is entirely important to the equation, because *that* is where human rights stem from: the essential nature of Man. If they do not stem from there, where do they stem from? Human ethics do not argue any sort of obligations. While you may feel morally obligated to provide for the less fortunate, those morals are essentially by choice. You really need to make a distinction between the two, otherwise this can all get very confusing. By my logic, no one has *any* obligation to help anyone less fortunate, no matter their situation.

Here's some reading on why positive rights (such as the obligation to help the less fortunate) don't really work: http://libertarianpapers.org/2009/6-why-libertarians-should-reject-positive-rights/

Lack of sentience indeed does not diminish pain, but it does not matter whether or not it does. The essential part of whether or not something/someone has rights is whether or not they are sentient. If they are, they possess natural rights. If they are not, they don't.

By my logic, no one has *any* obligation to help anyone less fortunate, no matter their situation.

On February 02 2009 06:49 tec27 wrote:

Animals do not possess this ability, because their existence is based on instinct. Humans, on the other hand, have the ability to make choices freely.

On February 02 2009 06:21 tec27 wrote:
Animals cannot posess rights and are therefore property.

Animals are also not sentient: their existence is essentially based on instinct/stimulus-response. That is the fundamental difference between animals and Man, and the key reason why animals cannot have rights, whereas Man does.

As such, people should be free to do with them as they please, since they are property.

If I don't agree with you listening to a certain type of music, should I petition the government to ban it? I don't think so, and while the rough handling of animals certainly brings up more emotions, the underlying situation is the same.

As it is, "animal rights" petitions such as these are essentially the same as many other things Westerners try to force upon impoverished countries: carbon emission regulations, high minimum wage laws, etc. While the intentions may be noble, the effects are certainly negative.

On February 02 2009 06:22 ahrara_ wrote:

Ok, I wasn't going to post about this but I have a serious problem with Frit's position.

Now I am as much of a free market capitalist as any good American, I'm all for free trade and deregulation, and I hate globalization protestors with a passion. But I think it's important to recognize that the price system isn't an ethical system. Profit margins don't account for human, environmental, and animal externalities. By talking about jobs and income as an ethical justification, we strip those people and animals that can't contribute to profit margins of any non-material existence. They become as good as any physical commodity, and just as disposable. It's true that animal rights legislation would probably put human beings out of a job, and we should value human concerns before animals, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't care about animal suffering at all. I see no reason why we can't impose "human feelings" on animals. If there is some kind of biological distinction between animals and humans that makes their pain different than ours, I don't know about it.

When you say "we aren't in a position to tell them what to do", you're implicitly advocating a system of cultural relativity. If it's true that good and evil is dependent on societal values, then we have no right to condemn the practice of slavery in pre-civil war America, or human rights violations in China. It seems to me the opposite should be true. You would reply that animals aren't humans, but again, I don't know of any biological distinction that indicates we don't share the same facility for pain. We have every right to make ethical judgments wherever there's evil. Further, we have an obligation to act to contain evil if the costs of doing so aren't too great.

On February 02 2009 06:51 ahrara_ wrote:
Ok, then I have nothing else to say to you really. If that's what you believe then this argument can't go anywhere.

On February 02 2009 06:22 ahrara_ wrote:

Ok, I wasn't going to post about this but I have a serious problem with Frit's position.

Now I am as much of a free market capitalist as any good American, I'm all for free trade and deregulation, and I hate globalization protestors with a passion. But I think it's important to recognize that the price system isn't an ethical system. Profit margins don't account for human, environmental, and animal externalities. By talking about jobs and income as an ethical justification, we strip those people and animals that can't contribute to profit margins of any non-material existence. They become as good as any physical commodity, and just as disposable. It's true that animal rights legislation would probably put human beings out of a job, and we should value human concerns before animals, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't care about animal suffering at all. I see no reason why we can't impose "human feelings" on animals. If there is some kind of biological distinction between animals and humans that makes their pain different than ours, I don't know about it.

When you say "we aren't in a position to tell them what to do", you're implicitly advocating a system of cultural relativity. If it's true that good and evil is dependent on societal values, then we have no right to condemn the practice of slavery in pre-civil war America, or human rights violations in China. It seems to me the opposite should be true. You would reply that animals aren't humans, but again, I don't know of any biological distinction that indicates we don't share the same facility for pain. We have every right to make ethical judgments wherever there's evil. Further, we have an obligation to act to contain evil if the costs of doing so aren't too great.

On February 02 2009 07:57 Ancestral wrote:
And tec27, the free market does not "work always," insofar as it is not always of benefit to 100% of all people.

I'm not sure how you made that up, but learn anything or observe the world and you'll see otherwise. I don't know if you just took 1 random econ class, or if you are some kind of die-hard anarcho-capitalist, but there is empirical evidence (i.e., history) that shows that at certain times, some groups of people detriment from the free market while others benefit.

However, if you want to argue that in most cases total surplus is maximized in a free market, then you may be right, except of course for the case of externalities, which you boldly claim "are bullshit."

On February 02 2009 15:40 riotjune wrote:
If one can't empathize with the suffering of animals, how can you expect him to empathize with human beings? People who treat animals like shit tend to treat humans in a similar fashion. Sure, that's their choice, but the world can do without them. China still has work to do in order to improve their human rights record but that's to be expected as the western world were the first to put such ideas in writing not too long ago. Old concept, relatively new ink.

This petition will likely be uneffective though. Human rights will have to improve first before the animal rights activists have any footing.

On February 02 2009 17:27 Marradron wrote:
Why are groups of people so eager to enforce THEIR believe upon others ?
Just because you dont think its a good thing doesnt mean you can go arround and enforce everyone to act like you. They have their reasons, you'll probaply never understand.

Humanity has slayed billions animals in thousands of years. Animals are treated quite well these days compared to the pre-industrial age where they were still just beeing hunted and slaughtered.

On February 02 2009 14:42 PH wrote:


That was a well thought out reply. In particular, I like your stance on moral relativity...somehow, I never really looked at it directly from that angle.

Anyway...the one major problem I have with what you wrote is that I am still not convinced that animals deserve similar treatment to humans in any way. You cite that their ability to feel pain is no lesser than humans, but that is a very weak standard, in my opinion.

There are many more and more important differences that I think people overlook from such a perspective.

For one, aren't most western societies based upon the "golden rule" (treat others as you would have them treat you)? And I'm not a particular expert on political science, but as far as I know, the concept of the social contract can still be applied somewhat. Animals, as far as I know, have no ability to reciprocate any of those things that our society is built upon. The only animals that are a direct part of society are domesticated anyway.

If that's the case, then why do we need to offer such special treatment to animals? Sure, I don't mind a certain degree of empathy, but when it starts affecting my practical interests (and not some sick animal cruelty fetish one might have), I feel there is a problem. If the cost of food at the market goes up because of some new law requiring more space for animals born and raised to be slaughtered, then I am not going to be happy.

If brutal treatment is unnecessary and is gratuitous, then sure, I have no problem with putting an end to it. But really...personally, I think there are better places to place your time and energy.

On February 03 2009 05:15 ahrara_ wrote:

My argument is based on the golden rule. We sure as hell wouldn't like to be skinned alive, so we shouldn't skin animals alive. Why does the fact that animals can't contribute mean they should be slaughtered? Do we slaughter mentally disabled people? You don't give me a reason to value this standard over pain. We do need to weigh the pain animals feel vs the pain we cause humans by catering to their rights, but that in no way proves we should ignore how animals feel.

If the right action is that which has the best utility, then I see no better place to put our time and energy. For one, it is one of the most neglected causes of suffering in the world, largely because the victims aren't human. Second, the magnitude of suffering probably surpasses that of all men put together. Literally billions of animals live their entire lives without seeing the sun or having more than few feet of breathing room. In many places, they die in absolute agony. Cows, for example, are strung up by their feet to a machine that systemically slits their throats, one by one, all without any anesthetic. Chickens have it worse.

As for good onto people, getting rid of meat would actually lower food prices dramatically, because demand for grains will fall precipitously when demand from poultry farmers is eliminated. Or to put it in non-economic terms: we won't be competing with cows for food.

Ok, admittedly, I'm kind of a hypocrite about this. In fact, I just had two double doubles from in and out and it was delicious. I have had stretches of vegetarianism in the past though, and if I were in a position of power, I would definitely act to help animals.