Is Swatting a Fly a Political Statement?

[Ivan Seeking]

When Obama was seen swatting a fly on his arm during a news conference, apparently he insulted the fly's rights folks.

"In a nutshell, our position is this: He isn't the Buddha, he's a human being, and human beings have a long way to go before they think before they act."

- PETA
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE55H4Z220090618

Carter, excessive welfare and handouts, and folks like this are what made me a Republican as a young man. Just as I think the Right needs to distance itself from the likes of Fox News, and Limbaugh, I think the Democrats want to stay far to the right of those who would object to killing a fly. I can't think of a better example of the nutty extreme left.

[I think Carter is a great man, but I also thought he was a terrible President. He should have read "The Prince"]

 

[rootX]

But now People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, calling it an "execution," wants the commander-in-chief to show a little more compassion to even "the least sympathetic animals."

...

 

[Pengwuino]

Obama killed a fly. WARMONGER!



I thought it was gross, crushing a fly on your own arm. Then again all bugs creep me out. I hardly kill bugs because they're disgusting to kill. Thank god for pest control :D

 

[Cyrus]

It just shows you how out of their minds PETA people are and how they should be publicly humiliated whenever possible.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I believe this is the first time that Obama has been accused of not being a divine entity. I guess we all knew the dream would end one day.

 

[Pengwuino]

I believe this is the first time that Obama has been accused of not being a divine entity. I guess we all knew the dream would end one day.

at least by his supporters ;)

 

[Equate]

It just shows you how out of their minds PETA people are and how they should be publicly humiliated whenever possible.

Along with those "Sea Shepherd" idiots.

Unbelievable how these organizations get funding.

 

[OmCheeto]

PETA makes me want to become a cannibal.

Cows = herbivores = tasty
Cats = carnivores = ewe
Chickens = herbivores(and maybe some token bugs, worms, and rocks) = tasty
Dogs = carnivores = yuck

Peta People = herbivores = mmmmm... marinate over night and cook'em on the barbie. yummie.

hmmm... how about Peta stuffed Pita?

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

I always thought PETA should stand for

People
Eat
Tasty
Animals

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

These are the sort of wackjobs that we see here in California a lot and which give me a hard time calling myself a liberal. Some of the things that they do really embarass me. That's why you'll see me argue with liberals so much here. I just care more about what liberals think and how they represent the ideology more than I care about conservatives.

When I heard about the hollywood stars pledging allegiance to Obama I rolled my eyes along with the conservatives.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Based on the statement quoted in the op, it seems that PETA is a religious group masquerading as a political organization.

 

[humanino]

PETA has been on the show "bull$hit !". The two magicians had me believe it is really cowcr*p. What a trick !

edit
Just to make it clear, if flies have rights, they should have the responsibilities coming with it, such as : do not interrupt the president.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Based on the statement quoted in the op, it seems that PETA is a religious group masquerading as a political organization.

Their ideology certainly borders on the religious.
I wonder if they'll ever start standing up for the rights of viruses and bacteria.
Wasn't there a virus that we drove to extinction?
Poor poor viruses.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Their ideology certainly borders on the religious.
I wonder if they'll ever start standing up for the rights of viruses and bacteria.
Wasn't there a virus that we drove to extinction?
Poor poor viruses.

I am a strong advocate for the humane treatment of animals. While there is certainly plenty of room for disagreement about what is and is not acceptable, say for example in the case of farming practices, when one starts defending the rights of a fly, I'd say this goes way beyond the conventional notion of animal rights or the humane treatment of animals.

 

[humanino]

It only proves what PETA is after : enough visibility to get money. There is no thought behind or beyond.

 

[math_04]

Honestly PETA are ridiculous. As if their members or leaders do not occasionally trample on an ant or swat a fly.

I am a strong advocate for the humane treatment of animals. While there is certainly plenty of room for disagreement about what is and is not acceptable, say for example in the case of farming practices, when one starts defending the rights of a fly, I'd say this goes way beyond the conventional notion of animal rights or the humane treatment of animals.

Exactly! It just shows that PETA, like many other well meaning organizations to start with, seem to have become radicalized. A fly is a fly, killing it would not make much difference It is not even an animal in the traditional sense (having a family, feelings and thoughts, feels pain? etc)

 

[dyosa]

apparently, PETA is over reacting on the killing of the fly. if these people let flies swarm in their households and live peacefully with them then i'd support their organization.

 

[Nesrin]

If anything, I'm offended by not having his reflexes.

Also, PETA sent Obama a "humane fly catcher"... http://www.petacatalog.org/images/HP220-Large.jpg"

 

[Chi Meson]

I saw this on a T-shirt:
.
.
.Meat is Murder

Tasty Tasty Murder
.
.
.
.
.

 

[OAQfirst]

I don't see the big deal here. PETA was asked for their opinion and they gave it. I read the actual blog at their site and it really doesn't look very critical.

 

[Moonbear]

I am a strong advocate for the humane treatment of animals. While there is certainly plenty of room for disagreement about what is and is not acceptable, say for example in the case of farming practices, when one starts defending the rights of a fly, I'd say this goes way beyond the conventional notion of animal rights or the humane treatment of animals.

And that is precisely the difference between, say, the local humane society, and PETA. Most of the funding PETA gets is by duping people into thinking that's what they are after...just humane treatment of animals. They don't understand that PETA is truly an animals RIGHTS supporter, which is very different. They really believe that every animal, all the way down to insects, have equal rights and standing with humans.

Actually, from their usual attitudes, they seem to think they all have MORE rights than humans. Afterall, the fly landed on Obama...it was self defense! Maybe he should have let the Secret Service kill the fly instead?

I'm glad they are feeling braver about speaking out publicly about these things and really showing their true colors. People used to think I was just making it up when I tried to explain that PETA doesn't even believe in exterminating cockroaches.

I'm not entirely sure I'd place them on the fringe left though, just on the fringe. And I agree with whoever made the comment that they seem more like a religious organization or cult.

 

[Gokul43201]

When Obama was seen swatting a fly on his arm during a news conference, apparently he insulted the fly's rights folks.

"In a nutshell, our position is this: He isn't the Buddha, he's a human being, and human beings have a long way to go before they think before they act."

- PETA
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE55H4Z220090618

...I think the Democrats want to stay far to the right of those who would object to killing a fly.

I'm not seeing what everyone else here is. Where in that statement, or anywhere else in the article, does PETA say they object to killing flies?

 

[Equate]

...PETA sent Obama a "humane fly catcher"... http://www.petacatalog.org/images/HP220-Large.jpg"

 

[Cyrus]

I'm not seeing what everyone else here is. Where in that statement, or anywhere else in the article, does PETA say they object to killing flies?

See: "Think before they act"

 

[Pengwuino]

And that is precisely the difference between, say, the local humane society, and PETA. Most of the funding PETA gets is by duping people into thinking that's what they are after...just humane treatment of animals. They don't understand that PETA is truly an animals RIGHTS supporter, which is very different. They really believe that every animal, all the way down to insects, have equal rights and standing with humans.

Bugs are always terrifying me and make me watch where I walk at night when there's no lights. Thus, they are terrorists, thus they have no rights. Case closed.

 

[Moonbear]

If it wasn't clear from Ivan's article, here's another one on the topic that states directly PETA's position on flies.

We support compassion for the even the smallest animals," says Bruce Friedrich, VP for Policy at PETA. “We support giving insects the benefit of the doubt."

Friedrich says PETA supports "brushing flies away rather than killing them" and was disappointed that the President had gone ahead and squashed the pesky fly.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/peta-says-no-more-flykilling-sends-obama-a-humane-fly-catcher-.html

Of course, Obama DID think before he acted...he paused and carefully considered swatting that fly. And, yeah, I'm jealous of those reflexes too!

 

[D H]

PETA is nuts. Between the fly campaign and the sea kitten campaign, The Onion could not have done a better job of parodying a wacko group than PETA has done to itself.

 

[rootX]

PETA leader will:
http://www.peta.org/feat/newkirk/will.html

 

[Astronuc]

Should we sent Obama a fly swatter or an electric bug zapper?

Or how about a Venus flytrap and/or pitcher plant?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitcher_plant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_flytrap

Would PETA object to a insect-eating plants?

 

[Moonbear]

Can we send all of the leadership of PETA to a part of the world where flies carry sleeping sickness or mosquitoes carry malaria or yellow fever, and see if they still think it's sufficient to just shoo away bugs?

 

[Astronuc]

Can we send all of the leadership of PETA to a part of the world where flies carry sleeping sickness or mosquitoes carry malaria or yellow fever, and see if they still think it's sufficient to just shoo away bugs?

And cockroaches?

And locusts?

And scorpions?


Muahahahahaaaaa!1111

 

[Pengwuino]

PETA leader will:
http://www.peta.org/feat/newkirk/will.html

wow... reading that just... wow. WOW.

 

[Gokul43201]

See: "Think before they act"

I see it, and and still don't see how that means they object to killing flies.

If it wasn't clear from Ivan's article, here's another one on the topic that states directly PETA's position on flies.

We support compassion for the even the smallest animals," says Bruce Friedrich, VP for Policy at PETA. “We support giving insects the benefit of the doubt."

Friedrich says PETA supports "brushing flies away rather than killing them" and was disappointed that the President had gone ahead and squashed the pesky fly.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/peta-says-no-more-flykilling-sends-obama-a-humane-fly-catcher-.html

Of course, Obama DID think before he acted...he paused and carefully considered swatting that fly. And, yeah, I'm jealous of those reflexes too!

That is closer, but still not quite there. Not showing support for position X is not the same as objecting to it. And more specifically, showing preferential support for position Y over position X is also not the same as objecting to position X.

I do not object to people practicing religion, but I can still be disappointed if a person had a choice between working at a school and working at a church, and chose the latter only because it was marginally more convenient.

Would we be singing the praises of the President's reflexes if instead of a fly, there was a fuzzy little baby chick running about the place, cheeping all the time and disrupting the interview, and after an aide repeatedly fails to catch the pesky bird, Obama pulls out a gun and blows its head off (then makes a joke about taking care of dinner)?

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/4735/babychick.jpg I think that most people do not give much thought to treatment of animals, and simply go with "conventional notions" (to borrow Ivan's words), and these conventions are often based on arbitrary feelings of affection and dislike. While I don't agree with a lot of PETA's ideas, I don't disagree that we ought to give more thought to the logic (or lack of it) behind the granting of certain rights to certain animals.

 

[Gokul43201]

Can we send all of the leadership of PETA to a part of the world where flies carry sleeping sickness or mosquitoes carry malaria or yellow fever, and see if they still think it's sufficient to just shoo away bugs?

I think you might find that one can hold that position that it is preferable to shoo away when the danger of (say) sleeping sickness is negligible but preferable to kill when it isn't. The two positions are not internally inconsistent.

 

[JaredJames]

PETA leader will:
http://www.peta.org/feat/newkirk/will.html

Doesn't she think highly of herself!

Her flesh is good enough to eat, her skin is good enough for leather...

Blimey, blowing your own trumpet or what!

 

[JaredJames]

Would we be singing the praises of the President's reflexes if instead of a fly, there was a fuzzy little baby chick running about the place, cheeping all the time and disrupting the interview, and after an aide repeatedly fails to catch the pesky bird, Obama pulls out a gun and blows its head off (then makes a joke about taking care of dinner)?

I think that is an extreme example with no justification. Why there would be a chick running around and why you need to be so extremist in your example makes me think you are one of them.

Yes, humane treatment for animals, but No, animals don't have rights as with rights comes a degree of responsibility, you must acknowledge those rights and use them correctly. If you want to say they have rights, then that fly did prove hostile to the very important president and he took action to protect himself. (Anyone going to argue that, remember how many diseases flies carry). See link here for list of diseases: http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/insects/fly/Houseflyprintout.shtml .

Like the president carries a gun anyway! That's what the secret service is for.

 

[Moonbear]

Would we be singing the praises of the President's reflexes if instead of a fly, there was a fuzzy little baby chick running about the place, cheeping all the time and disrupting the interview, and after an aide repeatedly fails to catch the pesky bird, Obama pulls out a gun and blows its head off (then makes a joke about taking care of dinner)?

Well, no, that makes no sense. It's better to let the chick grow up a bit so it's worth having for dinner. Are you seriously defending PETAs position here with these unrelated arguments?

If you have any doubt about PETA's position, ask them. This isn't something new, and we shouldn't have to prove it based on just some current news articles. Their own website is full of information about their positions. I'm just not linking to it, because I don't personally want to give them any web traffic.

 

[humanino]

PETA leader will:
http://www.peta.org/feat/newkirk/will.html

f. That my liver be vacuum-packed and shipped, in whole or in part, to France, to there be used in a public appeal to persuade shoppers not to support the vile practice of force-feeding geese and ducks for foie gras;[/size]

We will cook ze liver !

 

[Gokul43201]

Are you seriously defending PETAs position here with these unrelated arguments?

1. My argument is not unrelated to PETA's specific, and is in fact restricted to no more than those quoted words. Most of the posts objecting to this position, however, seem to be unrelated to the actual position expressed.

2. It is not that I care particularly to defend a specific position by PETA rather than to point out that no one here has yet actually objected to the actual position, and instead are attacking imagined or related positions. It's the logic (or lack of it) behind the responses that I'm addressing.

This would likewise be true if PETA said we should go about raping each other and people here objected that PETA was condoning murder. I'm not defending the position; I'm rejecting the response.

If you have any doubt about PETA's position, ask them. This isn't something new, and we shouldn't have to prove it based on just some current news articles. Their own website is full of information about their positions. I'm just not linking to it, because I don't personally want to give them any web traffic.

If everybody (except me) already knew that PETA objects to killing flies, which is a stronger position than has been quoted so far in this thread, then there really isn't anything new in here (other than the circumstance leading to a predictable outcome). So I guess I'll drop the argument on that note.

 

[Gokul43201]

Oops, missed this post.

I think that is an extreme example with no justification. Why there would be a chick running around and why you need to be so extremist in your example makes me think you are one of them.

It is a simple logical extension. If a philosophical position does not survive its logical extensions, then it has arbitrary limits imposed on it. What makes killing a fly a thing to be proud of but killing a bird an extremist position?

Yes, humane treatment for animals, but No, animals don't have rights

This makes no sense to me. Do animals have the right

If you want to say they have rights, then that fly did prove hostile to the very important president and he took action to protect himself. (Anyone going to argue that, remember how many diseases flies carry). See link here for list of diseases: http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/insects/fly/Houseflyprintout.shtml

This is a valid argument if there is a significant rate of occurrence of house-fly-related typhoid, cholera, dysentery or anthrax in the US in recent years, and hence a significant danger from contact with the fly.

Okay, now I really will drop it.

 

[Cyrus]

I see it, and and still don't see how that means they object to killing flies.

That statement is an objection to killing flies.

 

[math_04]

It is a simple logical extension. If a philosophical position does not survive its logical extensions, then it has arbitrary limits imposed on it. What makes killing a fly a thing to be proud of but killing a bird an extremist position?

If every decision, action etc was based purely on logic, nothing would ever get done in the world. That is why common sense, street smart attitude to life is also useful.

 

[GeorginaS]

If every decision, action etc was based purely on logic, nothing would ever get done in the world. That is why common sense, street smart attitude to life is also useful.

Yes and Gokul43201 is pure logic combined with pure smart attitude.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

1. My argument is not unrelated to PETA's specific, and is in fact restricted to no more than those quoted words. Most of the posts objecting to this position, however, seem to be unrelated to the actual position expressed.

Ah, in that case I will refine my statement to say that it is pathetic that they would even comment on the matter; not to mention referring to Buddha. I thought this was an animal rights group, not a religion.

However, if not an objection, then paradoxical. Apparently they have knowledge of how an enlightened person would act without actually being enlightened - they too are mere humans. So if we are going to nitpick, were they claiming to be enlightened, or just that they know enlightenment when they see it, without actually being enlightened?

 

[Chi Meson]

We are operating under the fallacy of "false dichotomy." Can't we all agree that:

Gokul is logically correct

AND

PETA is nuts

 

[JaredJames]

Oops, missed this post.
It is a simple logical extension. If a philosophical position does not survive its logical extensions, then it has arbitrary limits imposed on it. What makes killing a fly a thing to be proud of but killing a bird an extremist position?

Of course there are limits on it. That's like saying "you feel it's ok to slaughter a cow for meat, therefore you feel it's ok to kill a human for the same reason". BS. By expanding the argument to a chick you bring in an extreme example. However, if the chick has a disease (I'm not sure if they actually carry anything), then yes, it should be put down. If it means shooting it so it no longer endangers a person (president or not) then by all means do it. As long as it is quick and humane. (See how they cull animals for foot and mouth - bolt through head from gun, quick and effective). To put it simply, killing a fly and killing a bird are different, killing a bird in the scenario presented (presidents speech) is an extreme example (especially when you yourself say 'the president pulls out a gun'). This is a completely absurd and unreal situation.

This makes no sense to me. Do animals have the right

Please look at my whole comment, but it does make sense. I believe animals should be treated humanely, but I do not believe they should have rights. It is up to us to treat them fairly and to not subject them to cruelty (and before anyone comes at me with the animal testing lark, I would rather see a product tested on a mouse before a humam, for obvious reasons). By giving an animal (say a cow) the right to live (as many rights groups want) you then prevent access to cows meat, except for that which dies naturally (economically unsound way of doing things). Now I don't know how everyone else feels, but humans are not herbivores, we have the ability to eat meat, we have eaten meat for thousands of years, why should we all suddenly become vegetarian? What justification is there for such a move.

This is a valid argument if there is a significant rate of occurrence of house-fly-related typhoid, cholera, dysentery or anthrax in the US in recent years, and hence a significant danger from contact with the fly.

That is not something you can guage, dysentery for example can be caused by a number of factors from a fly landing on your meal before/as you eat it, to the meat being undercooked. The fact is they DO cause the spread of illness all over the world and it is why restaurants have the blue bug zapper lights in the kitchens.

 

[OAQfirst]

When the media approaches PETA and asks their opinion, the expected reply is going to be obvious. I think I would be mightily annoyed if someone asked for my opinion, knew what I was going to say, heard what I said, then criticized me over and over for it.

I'm not with PETA on most of their positions, but I know better than to ask for something I know I won't agree with. And that in mind, I sure as 'ell know better than to pounce on them for what I knew I would get.

 

[BoomBoom]

They really believe that every animal, all the way down to insects, have equal rights and standing with humans.

Hmmm why should they stop at insects? If they really value life that much maybe they should be against killing of bacteria? They should stop bathing and washing their clothes etc. due to all the micro-organisms they kill.

I'd be willing to bet that some of these folks are pro-choice too...hypocrits!

 

[Nesrin]

PETA leader will:
http://www.peta.org/feat/newkirk/will.html

"That the “meat” of my body, or a portion thereof, be used for a human barbecue, to remind the world that the meat of a corpse is all flesh, regardless of whether it comes from a human being or another animal, and that flesh foods are not needed."

This is one of the weirdest things I've ever read... and that's saying a lot.

 

[jobyts]

What makes killing a fly a thing to be proud of but killing a bird an extremist position?

I see it from an evolution point of view. (http://library.thinkquest.org/19012/treeolif.htm), in the evolution tree, the closer the other living being node to human node, the killing is less accepted. I remember in one of the Carl Sagan's cosmos videos on evolution, he talks about 3 layers of human brain - and the deepest part of the human brain is same as that of reptiles. Doesn't make me feel very proud though, but it could be that sisterly feeling that makes humans think killing a bird is unacceptable. See, how far that insect is in the tree?