|
Post by Meshakhad on Oct 24, 2010 13:26:07 GMT -5
All animals have the same parts? Really? THEN WHERE THE FUCK ARE MY GILLS?! Silly maybenever, humans aren't animals! They're aberrations that should go extinct ASAP.
|
|
|
Post by CtraK on Oct 24, 2010 13:31:43 GMT -5
This link suggests that it's VP MaryBeth Sweetland who admitted it, although the page also has several other PETA-related quotes surrounding it that somehow make it seem pretty tame. Yeah, I'm now giving up all pretense of neutrality.
|
|
|
Post by booley on Oct 24, 2010 13:55:51 GMT -5
I don't get it. Are they trying to say, that eating beef is as morally reprehensible as eating human? Because cows and humans have so much things in common??? Many of the fundies in PETA and other groups like that tend to believe that it's evil to use animals for food or anything else while crying for humanity to undergo a forced purge to lower the population and install limits like China on child birth to keep the population in check. Those two things are not exclusive to each other. Especially when over population is a contributing factor to so many environmental problems. Such as animals being driven to extinction because of habitat destruction and hunted for game meat. You can say that their solution may be extreme but the fact is a lower human population would have a lot of benefits. Except that as far as I can tell, Watson is not even a member of Peta much less representative. And tree spiking is highly controversial even among the so called "radical environmentalists". Even Earth First has renounced it. So again it's not necessarily representative. I guess I can also point out that tree spiking , while it has harmed some loggers, does not "as often as not maim the chainsaw operator". There is only one reported case from 1987 of an injury caused by spiking. Even when Earth First did at first advocate this practice, it had instructions on how to do it to keep both activist and logger safe (we can argue over how effective those instructions were but clearly the intent was not to cause bodily harm to loggers) A bit of a nit pick, it has harmed a logger. But lets not blow this up to the level of terrorism. Maybe I misinterpreting but most of the comments here seem to not be "I disagree with their positions" so much as "I hate Peta so I disagree with their positions". I myself am not defending any particular PETA stand not saying they dont' have flaws or that their tactics are the best solutions for the problem they are addressing. But even a total douche can still be right. Hell they even have a popular TV series based on this idea.
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on Oct 24, 2010 15:16:23 GMT -5
Even if you can argue that tree spiking is relatively harmless (which is debatable, considering all the steps in lumber processing where such a spike could pose a problem), it's still a criminal act. They are deliberately causing damage to the private property of others--both the trees, and the instruments used to cut them down or further process the lumber. These people should be lobbying to lift the restrictions of the things like the ESA that prevent responsible logging, rather than risking the lives of men just trying to make a paycheck.
And I will say, I hate PETA. But I hate them specifically because of their positions, and the all-too-often criminal and immoral methods they employ to further those positions.
|
|
|
Post by booley on Oct 24, 2010 15:31:29 GMT -5
Even if you can argue that tree spiking is relatively harmless (which is debatable, considering all the steps in lumber processing where such a spike could pose a problem), it's still a criminal act. Nopt really arguing that. But it's still not terrorism nor the huge problem it's often made out to be. It's often not even a legitimate criticism of the environmentalists it's used to attack. Acting like it is seem to only serve fear mongerers that want to grab more power by screaming "national Security" Which they do. But the PR machines gets so hung about "tree spiking" that what actually is going on gets lost. What specific laws have they broken? I am not being sarcastic. I can see them as engaging in civil disobedience but unless there's more, that doesnt' make them any different then lots of other activist groups in various movements through out history. I am not making a direct comparison but civil rights activists have also broken laws too. And do you mean their positions (like veganism, treating animals humanely, lowering the human impact on the planet being some of them) or their tactics? I can say that implementing China's one child policy world wide is not a good idea and still hold to the position that we need to lower the human population.
|
|
|
Post by tiado on Oct 24, 2010 15:46:54 GMT -5
If they believed in the cause then why would so many celebrities which support them turn around and do wear fur and leather etc? their hypocrisy just stinks too much. It's because celebrities like to take a "do as I say, not as I do" stance when it comes to things like this. They demand that the rest of us sacrifice everything in our lives, while at the same time they wouldn't dare do the same.
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on Oct 24, 2010 15:52:22 GMT -5
What specific laws have they broken? I am not being sarcastic. I can see them as engaging in civil disobedience but unless there's more, that doesnt' make them any different then lots of other activist groups in various movements through out history. I am not making a direct comparison but civil rights activists have also broken laws too. Well, they fund known terrorist organizations. They donated to the cause of a convicted (and self-admitted) arsonist. They habitually engage in the destruction of the personal property of others (red paint on fur coats, etc). They kill animals often without any kind of proper evaluation--their agents will go, pick up an animal, kill it, and throw it in a dumpster without ever reporting it. Both. Some of their position I have no problem with, such as "treat animals humanely". However, their definition of humane is absurd. They want "total animal liberation". No pets. No animal products of any kind used by humans, including as food. They want what is, frankly, unnatural. Yes, humans could do a lot to have less detrimental effect on the planet. But we are top predators by nature. The day they convince a lion to exist purely on tofu, so will I. And if we are killing animals to eat them, as is natural, I find it better to put the non-edible parts to good use in the form of leather, glue, and the countless other products they're used in.
|
|
|
Post by sugarfreejazz on Oct 24, 2010 15:53:00 GMT -5
I don't get it. Are they trying to say, that eating beef is as morally reprehensible as eating human? Because cows and humans have so much things in common??? It's a vegetarian thing, that animals are just like people. So since presumably you wouldn't butcher and eat Pamela Anderson, you should think of other animals in the same light. Are you sure all vegetarians think this?
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Oct 24, 2010 17:07:50 GMT -5
Many of the fundies in PETA and other groups like that tend to believe that it's evil to use animals for food or anything else while crying for humanity to undergo a forced purge to lower the population and install limits like China on child birth to keep the population in check. Those two things are not exclusive to each other. Especially when over population is a contributing factor to so many environmental problems. Such as animals being driven to extinction because of habitat destruction and hunted for game meat. You can say that their solution may be extreme but the fact is a lower human population would have a lot of benefits. Except that as far as I can tell, Watson is not even a member of Peta much less representative. And tree spiking is highly controversial even among the so called "radical environmentalists". Even Earth First has renounced it. So again it's not necessarily representative. I guess I can also point out that tree spiking , while it has harmed some loggers, does not "as often as not maim the chainsaw operator". There is only one reported case from 1987 of an injury caused by spiking. Even when Earth First did at first advocate this practice, it had instructions on how to do it to keep both activist and logger safe (we can argue over how effective those instructions were but clearly the intent was not to cause bodily harm to loggers) A bit of a nit pick, it has harmed a logger. But lets not blow this up to the level of terrorism. Maybe I misinterpreting but most of the comments here seem to not be "I disagree with their positions" so much as "I hate Peta so I disagree with their positions". I myself am not defending any particular PETA stand not saying they dont' have flaws or that their tactics are the best solutions for the problem they are addressing. But even a total douche can still be right. Hell they even have a popular TV series based on this idea. I don't have a problem with asking people not to have more kids than one or two, but forcing a purge or fixing people so they can't isn't the way I'd ever want to see it go. And I never said Watson was in PETA, but, he is one of the kind that rabidly cries to protect animals and such while demanding the culling of humans, sterilization of others, and resorts to dangerous, even deadly tactics to stop man. Same as PETA
|
|
|
Post by worlder on Oct 24, 2010 17:09:11 GMT -5
When was the last time PETA was... sane?
EDIT: Of course it is not easy to determine seeing how extremism creeps into organizations rather than being a single short-lived event.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Oct 24, 2010 20:30:52 GMT -5
But we are top predators by nature. The day they convince a lion to exist purely on tofu, so will I. That's kind of a bad comparison. I mean, I'm not entirely certain what PeTA thinks because I pay little attention to them, but an animal rights proponent such as myself doesn't think non-human animals are exactly like humans--that would be absurd. But that doesn't mean animals shouldn't be given what Peter Singer calls "equal consideration." For example, men and women are biologically different. Women can reproduce or have abortions and men cannot. But just because we are biologically different in that regard doesn't mean I should oppose or be apathetic to a woman's reproductive rights. In a similar fashion, even though we as humans have higher mental faculties and can reason doesn't mean we should ignore the needs and feelings of animals. So I'm not saying equal rights--I'm not demanding cows get a right to vote or men get a right to have an abortion--I'm saying we have equal consideration. As for the lion and tofu thing, lions can't reason and change their diets the way humans can, so I don't think we can compare the two. Human beings, since we can reason, don't run on instinct and natural behavior alone. And even then I'm not a complete vegetarian. The further down the food chain we go, the less of a chance the organisms have consciousness and process pain. If anyone wants to correct me on this go ahead, but to my knowledge a cow can feel emotions and pain more than, say, a shrimp. So some animals are okay to eat in general (in my opinion) if it's done in a sustainable way. And of course there's also the issue of being in a "First World" nation compared to a "Third World" one. Here in America as a middle class citizen I can afford to contemplate this type of thing. I have the money to buy food that doesn't contain meat products and still have a healthy diet, and I don't believe in causing unnecessary harm to beings that have a consciousness, emotions and can feel physical pain. Therefore I think going vegetarian (or practically vegetarian) is a good choice for me and could be a good choice for other similarly situated people.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Oct 24, 2010 21:15:53 GMT -5
They want what is, frankly, unnatural. Yes, humans could do a lot to have less detrimental effect on the planet. But we are top predators by nature. The day they convince a lion to exist purely on tofu, so will I. And if we are killing animals to eat them, as is natural, I find it better to put the non-edible parts to good use in the form of leather, glue, and the countless other products they're used in. While I agree with the rest, this is the naturalistic fallacy. What is "natural" is ethically irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Oct 24, 2010 22:24:45 GMT -5
I have a theory that PETA is really a covert operation being run by the meat industry to discredit animal welfare groups. You don't know how much I wish that were true.
|
|
|
Post by georgebullocks on Oct 24, 2010 22:58:46 GMT -5
What specific laws have they broken? I am not being sarcastic. I can see them as engaging in civil disobedience but unless there's more, that doesnt' make them any different then lots of other activist groups in various movements through out history. I am not making a direct comparison but civil rights activists have also broken laws too. Well, they fund known terrorist organizations. They donated to the cause of a convicted (and self-admitted) arsonist. They habitually engage in the destruction of the personal property of others (red paint on fur coats, etc). They kill animals often without any kind of proper evaluation--their agents will go, pick up an animal, kill it, and throw it in a dumpster without ever reporting it. Both. Some of their position I have no problem with, such as "treat animals humanely". However, their definition of humane is absurd. They want "total animal liberation". No pets. No animal products of any kind used by humans, including as food. They want what is, frankly, unnatural. Yes, humans could do a lot to have less detrimental effect on the planet. But we are top predators by nature. The day they convince a lion to exist purely on tofu, so will I. And if we are killing animals to eat them, as is natural, I find it better to put the non-edible parts to good use in the form of leather, glue, and the countless other products they're used in. What's the point of destorying existing fur coats? That'll only prompt people to but a new one.
|
|
|
Post by booley on Oct 25, 2010 0:13:56 GMT -5
... Well, they fund known terrorist organizations. What terrorist groups? What makes them terrorist groups? Remember, a lot of groups have been so labeled that don't actually do terrorism. I recall when Quaker peace groups were being spied on possible terrorists. I mean, I guess you are reffering to ALF but I'm not sure they are terrorists. Vandels sure. However perhaps I am old fashioned but a terrorists kills people to make them do what he wants. Which one. Again, vague anecdotes don't really help debate here. I can hardly judge the validity of a non general assertion. Maybe they thought he wasn't getting good representation. Maybe they thought he got a stiffer sentence then he deserved. Maybe Peta loves Arson. O r maybe even the details are not what you think they are. I don't know and cant' know because I have no idea what case you are talking about, much less any details. Which is against the law but hardly up there with terrorism. And what constitutes habitual? We have already had the tree spiking thing cast as if it's commonly maiming people when in fact it's not. So I am a little leery of accepting such on face value. Well Peta has said it opposes the No kill Policy as unrealistic and inhumane (since animals can live for years in cages). Indeed, peta will euthanize animals itself, taking said animals from shelters that they feel euthanize inhumanely. That may sound contradictory but it's not necessarily. We often euthanize animals out of compassion when it's felt their quality of life wont' improve. In any far I only find one instance of two agents doing what you claimed in 2005 (they were acquitted of animal cruelty but charged with littering). While that is a crime, it doesnt' really display a pattern. That's not really illegal, just radical. And since movements have often advocated radical ideas and some of these are today mainstream, I can't really condemn them for it. I mean, not discriminating against gay people and women voting used to be considered pretty out there. I disagree on that Humans are not required to eat or use animals. We just do it because we find it efficient and enjoyable. I should also point out that we as a species do lots of "unnatural" things every day. OF course, that I disagree in no way means you are therefore worthy of my contempt. OF course unlike you and I, a lion IS a predator by nature. Unlike you or I, they cannot derive sustenance from plants even if they tried (specially formulated protein mixtures being an exception but really practical on an ecological scale.) To my knowledge, PETA has never advocated for Lions to subsist on Tofu. Do you have some evidence they have? Well again I should point that it's not "natural" for you, it's just normal for you. What is normal for you now may not be the case for those that come after. But in any case, if PETA's faults are to be held out, then what about the good they do? When they do investigations into animal cruelty, does that not count? When they exposed UK vets beating dogs and chicken farms as inhumane (and by even your standards I'd wager) was that not a godo thing? They provide free spaying and neutering. Is that good? You said yourself that you do agree with them on some issues. So why is only the bad stuff you think they are doing important?
|
|