By Diane Dew
Critique by Punkerslut
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
Many people perform daring acts. It's not abuse, but a display of physical talent and endurance.
Capitalists and investors work for "the greed of wealth." Doesn't make what they do immoral.
So you're saying that learning to face our fears is not good?
That is a temporary confinement. We "confine" our infants the same, when we place them in a car seat.
How do you know this harmed them? Have you talked with them?
So do many elderly humans die everyday too.
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.