By J. Neil Schulman
Critique by Punkerslut
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!?")
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.
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.
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.