KFC Abuse Scandal

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,717
4
Elizabeth1405 said:
Again, I don't speak for PETA, but it's really interesting to me how everyone is so anxious to discredit PETA when they know nothing about them. You asked me for examples of inaccuracies (aka, lies) on activistcash.com, and I gave you three examples (you can research it further if you don't believe me). What makes you believe the "alarming" quotes you read on that site are accurate? PETA has never, and would never, say that a cockroach is more valuable than a human being. That is totally ridiculous. If activistcash states that on their website, that's just one more "inaccuracy" that we can add to their already long, long list.
Just so you won't question the source this time, all of the following is directly from the PETA website:

“What do you mean by ‘animal rights’?”
People who support animal rights believe that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other purpose and that animals deserve consideration of their best interests regardless of whether they are cute, useful to humans, or endangered and regardless of whether any human cares about them at all (just as a mentally challenged human has rights even if he or she is not cute or useful and even if everyone dislikes him or her).
There you go. They believe animals (all animals, as they do not draw any line here) have rights equal to those of a human being. Clearly this includes the cockroach. If experimenting on a cockroach produced a cure for cancer, PETA would not approve. Would you?

“Where do you draw the line?”
The renowned humanitarian Albert Schweitzer, who accomplished so much for both humans and animals in his lifetime, would take time to stoop and move a worm from hot pavement to cool earth. Aware of the problems and responsibilities that an expanded ethic brings, he said, “A man is really ethical only when he obeys the constraint laid on him to aid all life which he is able to help .… He does not ask how far this or that life deserves sympathy … nor how far it is capable of feeling.”
Equal consideration to earthworms is always nice, even though they have no CNS and can't feel a thing.

“It’s almost impossible to avoid using all animal products; if you’re still causing animal suffering without realizing it, what's the point?”
It is impossible to live without causing some harm. We’ve all accidentally stepped on ants or breathed in gnats, but that doesn’t mean that we should intentionally cause unnecessary harm. You might accidentally hit someone with your car, but that is no reason to run someone over on purpose.
Neither do ants or gnats. While it can be mean-spirited to intentionally kill them, nothing has been hurt any more than when the weeds are pulled.

“How can you justify the millions of dollars of property damage caused by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF)?”
Throughout history, some people have felt the need to break the law to fight injustice. The Underground Railroad and the French Resistance are examples of movements in which people broke the law in order to answer to a higher morality. The ALF, which is simply the name adopted by people who act illegally in behalf of animal rights, breaks inanimate objects such as stereotaxic devices and decapitators in order to save lives. ALF members burn empty buildings in which animals are tortured and killed. ALF “raids” have given us proof of horrific cruelty that would not have otherwise been discovered or believed and have resulted in criminal charges’ being filed against laboratories for violations of the Animal Welfare Act. Often, ALF raids have been followed by widespread scientific condemnation of the practices occurring in the targeted labs, and some abusive laboratories have been permanently shut down as a result.
Just to end the debate on this issue, PETA proclaims on its own website official support of a terrorist organization, comparing it to the Underground Railroad and French Resistance. So activistcash was accurate there.

“How can you justify spending your time helping animals when there are so many people who need help?”
There are very serious problems in the world that deserve our attention, and cruelty to animals is one of them. We should try to alleviate suffering wherever we can. Helping animals is not any more or less important than helping human beings—they are both important. Animal suffering and human suffering are interconnected.
"Helping animals is not any more or less important than helping human beings—they are both important." There you go. Humans are no more important than animals, and it is clear that they include insects when they say "animals." So I was right to say that they consider a cockroach to be just as valuable as a human. Do you believe this, Elizabeth?
 

Moonbear

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,349
51
Actually, Elizabeth is right, PETA would never say a cockroach was MORE valuable than a human being. They'd say the cockroach was equal.

Elizabeth, when I was young and naive, I contributed to PETA as well. I thought they were just out to help abused animals, a noble mission in my mind. Then I learned what their mission really is, which is just as loseyourname has quoted from their website. Even pet ownership is considered a necessary evil by them. Basically, their view is that we've bred these animals dependent upon humans for survival, so we have to take care of them. But they'd prefer if we didn't have pets.

While it seems they have uncovered very real abuse at that Pilgrim's Pride location, and that's a good thing to put it to a stop, you'll also notice they are trying to use this against the entire poultry industry. This is what they do. They videotape one incident and try to convince the public that this is the norm rather than the exception.
 

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,717
4
Moonbear said:
Actually, Elizabeth is right, PETA would never say a cockroach was MORE valuable than a human being. They'd say the cockroach was equal.
I never said PETA thought cockroaches were more valuable. Here is my original post:

And the rather alarming quotes from PETA leaders suggesting that a human life is no more valuable than the life of a lab rat or even a cockroach? If that philosophy is an accurate assessment of the official beliefs of PETA, then that alone completely discredits them and makes them radical.
I said they believe human life to be no more valuable. I didn't say less valuable.
 

Moonbear

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,349
51
I actually wasn't refuting that part of your statement, just the part where you were challenging Elizabeth's statement, which, technically, was correct.

She said:
What makes you believe the "alarming" quotes you read on that site are accurate? PETA has never, and would never, say that a cockroach is more valuable than a human being.
 

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,717
4
None of the alarming quotes had anything to do with a cockroach being more valuable than a human. I was challenging her contention that my assessment (and the site's assessment) of PETA was inaccurate.
 
Ad Infinitum NAU said:
You're right that morals are culturally defined (if that's what you're implying by "adopts them"). However they should never be inflicted upon other cultures.
If you tell the Mandarin Chinese (random culture that I picked) that they should not "inflict" their morals upon Tibetans (another culture that I arbitrarily picked), then you are guilty of "inflicting" your morals upon the Mandarins.
 

Moonbear

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,349
51
Dissident Dan said:
If you tell the Mandarin Chinese (random culture that I picked) that they should not "inflict" their morals upon Tibetans (another culture that I arbitrarily picked), then you are guilty of "inflicting" your morals upon the Mandarins.
:approve:

Morals are such a tricky thing to try to argue over. Many would find it immoral to not "inflict" their own sense of morals on others who they view as behaving against those morals. That's going to be tough to reconcile with someone whose morals dictate that they should not inflict their morals on others. This is why wars start over different opinions of morality. Morals are pretty much just another name for your own personal beliefs, which are shaped by your experiences.
 
Dissident Dan said:
If you tell the Mandarin Chinese (random culture that I picked) that they should not "inflict" their morals upon Tibetans (another culture that I arbitrarily picked), then you are guilty of "inflicting" your morals upon the Mandarins.

I'm not saying one culture should tell other cultures this. I'm saying that we in our culture should not inflict our morals upon other cultures. And i'm also saying that once a culture imposes their morals onto us, such as the 'terrorists' did, then the situation should be treated logically. As moonbear said morals are a tricky subject to argue over.. so maybe we shouldn't go there. But my opinion is that , in your words, it is 'inhumane' and does not benefit any culture if morals are imposed.
 
Ad Infinitum NAU said:
...something just dawned on me while talking about fish. How many people do you know have fish as pets? Whether it be a small goldfish, or an aquarium full of exotic/rare, or large fish?

Then think about how many people you know who fish as a game, luring a fish in with an artificial worm, then snagging it on a hook, reeling it in, tearing the hook out of its mouth, then throwing it in a cooler where it can flop around til it suffocates? (that or being caught in large fishing nets by the thousand and then hang in the air until suffocating)

Fish serve 2 purposes: 1) for a pet 2) for food (and we dont mind its "torture")

I don't see you people being angered over this, and i don't even have to show you a video. I'm sure many of you have fished before. Why is this not "torture"?? ITS NOT! It's how we do it. It's how we've done it. It's how we'll continue to do it. It's the best and fastest way to achieve economic success. You all are angered over this ordeal because a chicken somehow has gained more emotional outlook over its processing. Since it has feathers, which resembles fur, which makes you think of ol scruffy, you humanize it and worry about its "feelings". Why not worry about the feelings of mr. trout?

Some of you might try to reply with "Oh but i do care about how fish are killed"... don't bother. that's ridiculous.

comments? rebuttals?
 

Evo

Mentor
22,857
2,312
They're not taking live fish and jumping up and down on them, tearing their fins off, or kicking them.

The thread is about intentional abuse to animals.
 
Evo said:
They're not taking live fish and jumping up and down on them, tearing their fins off, or kicking them.

The thread is about intentional abuse to animals.

I understand that, but I'm asking yall why you don't see that as abuse, since it too is intentional. Fishermen, when fishing, are intending to lure a fish in, hook it, de-hook it, and throw it in a cooler. no, they are not jumping on them, tearing their fins off (though sometimes tearing their "lips" off) or kicking them. But, they are snagging them with a hook that prevents the fish from coming loose, ripping it right back out, and suffocating the fish to death. It would be the same as pulling a worm across the dirt intending to catch a chicken, only when the chicken caught the worm, a very powerful cinch caught around its beak. then, to get his line back, the chickenman would have to rip the cinch off the chicken's beak, soemtimes ripping the beak off as well. Then he/she would proceed to wrap a plastic bag around the chicken's head, suffocating it to death. THAT, i'm sure, you would most definitely label as abuse.. so why not so with the fish?
 
Ad Infinitum NAU said:
I'm not saying one culture should tell other cultures this. I'm saying that we in our culture should not inflict our morals upon other cultures.
Well, that's not a moral of our culture. In fact, I don't know of any culture that, to my knowledge, has that moral. So which culture's morals are you imposing on ours?

-----------------------------------------

The treatment of fish is also horrible. I do not condone that, either. However, people are not consistent in their views, so they will condone fishing because it's more mainstream than beating chickens.

There's also the argument that animal abuse such as that uncovered in the Pilgrim's Pride facility leads to abusing humans. This argument is corroborated by empirical evidence. Fishing has not been shown to lead to abusing humans.
 
im tired

Dissident Dan said:
Well, that's not a moral of our culture. In fact, I don't know of any culture that, to my knowledge, has that moral. So which culture's morals are you imposing on ours?
It's not a moral. It's logic. Its logic that should be used. You find it in nature, but humans have somehow lost it.

Dissident Dan said:
The treatment of fish is also horrible. I do not condone that, either. However, people are not consistent in their views, so they will condone fishing because it's more mainstream than beating chickens.

There's also the argument that animal abuse such as that uncovered in the Pilgrim's Pride facility leads to abusing humans. This argument is corroborated by empirical evidence. Fishing has not been shown to lead to abusing humans.
That argument only exists because people look for that certain thing when analyzing a serial killer. I doubt many serial killers have been investigated about how often the fished.. but i'm sure there is some statistician who could find the correlation that fishing leads to serial killers (if that was the mainstream excuse for serial killer behaviour). There are many people who have "tortured" living beings who have not become serial killers. I have talked to many people at college who tell of stories from when they were younger, of how they would do this and that to a cat, rabbit, squirrel, lizard, pigeon, etc. But out of alllll those people, how many would i say are able to become serial killers? none. most of them are deeply religious. I think the correlation between 'torture' of animals and serial killing is bogus. yes, serial killers tortured animals in the past, but that doesnt mean that's what led them to killing humans. it's like the whole bowling for columbine thing.. just because there's evidence that darren and whats-his-face went bowling the morning of the shooting doesnt mean the act of bowling is what started the behaviour. If it was there, it was there all along. The mutilation of animals did not create the serial killing behaviour. It was there. If anything the "torture" vented their urges and kept them from killing humans sooner. It is a psychological disorder that was there from the beginning, from something done to the person, or just the way the brain is organized. People who investigate serial killers look for anything that might be the "cause" of the behaviour. And yes, 9 out of 10 times there is an animal abuse. But I bet you could poll 1000 people in america and ask them if anytime in their life they have tortured an animal and i would say that 90% have. But that doesn't mean there are 900 serial killers on the loose.
 

Moonbear

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,349
51
Ad Infinitum NAU said:
It's not a moral. It's logic. Its logic that should be used. You find it in nature, but humans have somehow lost it.
How is it logic? Explain that, please. I don't see anything logical about not imposing one's own morals on others. Afterall, if they are that important to you, wouldn't it be more logical to, indeed, impose them upon others? If I didn't feel the need to expect such moral behavior of others, why would I expect it of myself either?

And where do you find morals in nature, other than humans? Many philosophers would argue that morality is what makes us human, and what distinguishes as separate from other animals. It is because we have morality that we are expected to act against our instincts, at least according to certain philosophies.

Though, I'm suddenly thinking of a strange contradiction here...if animal rights groups believe that humans are no better than animals, then wouldn't that mean we shouldn't be expected to behave any better than them either? Do we then not have morality above that of the animals, such that we are under no obligation to act against our instincts to protect them? Isn't it precisely because we are different, and presumably better, than animals that we are under the moral obligation to care for them?
 
Moonbear said:
And where do you find morals in nature, other than humans? Many philosophers would argue that morality is what makes us human, and what distinguishes as separate from other animals. It is because we have morality that we are expected to act against our instincts, at least according to certain philosophies.

Though, I'm suddenly thinking of a strange contradiction here...if animal rights groups believe that humans are no better than animals, then wouldn't that mean we shouldn't be expected to behave any better than them either? Do we then not have morality above that of the animals, such that we are under no obligation to act against our instincts to protect them? Isn't it precisely because we are different, and presumably better, than animals that we are under the moral obligation to care for them?
Actually, I do not believe that humans are the only animals who act in moral ways or who have sense of morality. An experiment has been done in which macaque monkeys would not take food from a dispenser when they knew that taking the food would cause another macaque electric shock. The correlation was even stronger in the monkeys that had been shocked themselves.

Anyway, I would not say that we are "better". I do not believe that classification of "better", in general, is a meaningful classification. I only believe in things being better in ability to achieve specific goals. What we do have is the highest level of intelligence. Because we have that, I'd hope that we employ it in making more ethical decisions.
 

Monique

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,104
62
Ad Infinitum NAU said:
I'm not saying one culture should tell other cultures this. I'm saying that we in our culture should not inflict our morals upon other cultures. And i'm also saying that once a culture imposes their morals onto us, such as the 'terrorists' did, then the situation should be treated logically.
Another real-life example: President Bush freeing a country of a vicious dictator. Apparently Bush had no right to inflict his morality of having people live in freedom upon another culture.. where would this world be if everyone lived in their own little word and absolutely did not care about what goes on outside of it?

About your fish example: morals are based on the balance of receiving benefit and inflicting damage. I already gave the example before of lab-animals, we can only use them because there are strict rules that tell us that:
*The research must serve an important goal
*There is no suitable alternative to reach that goal
*Not more animals are used than required
The same rules apply when it comes to the use of human embryo's, with a further restriction that the research must be aborted 14 days after fertilization (that's when the notochord, the placenta starts developing). You can think the same way about the fishery.
 

Monique

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,104
62
About the serial killers "The mutilation of animals did not create the serial killing behaviour", the lack of empathy for living beings is a traitmark of serial killers.

Just the other week I watched an interview with 'America's most dangerous man', he used to work for the maffia and murdered all the people who couldn't bring up the money. He was ice-hard. He'd tell the stories of killing these people (the count was around 100-150) without showing any emotion towards them. One time, he said, a man was crying for his life, begging to god to safe him. Well, the killer gave him 30 min to pray, if there were a god, he'd be saved. This was the biggest mistake he ever made, he said, and telling this story really bothered him: obviously he allowed the man to have emotions.

Anyway, so at the end he starts telling about his family: wife and kids, and suddenly almost breaks down in tears. Where is emotions were completely lacking when talking about his victims, his emotions overwhelms him when realizing his wife has a serial-killer as a husband and he felt horrible for her to live with that fact. I was seriously surprised by those emotions.

I wondered: how about all the families of the men you killed, did he ever think about the damage he did to them?

Anyway, you saying:
I'm merely stating that this release of primal urge upon objects should not be punished. [and] I do not see this action as torture, because i do not see these chickens as animals worthy of emotion. They are our food.
made me think of that man, and the logic that must've been in his mind.

You never answered my question whether a man beating his wife, to release a primal urge, should be left unpunished. Or in certain countries where it is ok for a man to mutilate his wife if she's suspected to have glanced at another man.

Isn't it our duty to go into those countries and better the situation, give humanitarian help? Ever heard of amnesty international?
 
I'm fairly borderline on eating meat. I probably always will because it tastes good, but who knows.

My thought is a quote from a beautiful mind I believe. It was something like to achieve the best result you must choose the option best for yourself and the group.

If we didn't work on a race level as humans and consider the group every living thing then I assume the theory would still apply. Chickens can't possible provide enough positive over negative contributions to society to make up for what we gain by using them as food. Or can they? I don't know much on their benefits aside from the use of food. While the pleasure of the chicken counts towards a certain amount, is it really worth as much as a contributing human. A person who contributes more as a whole should get more, and therefore their self-enjoyment should be worth more, shouldn't it?

I'm just looking for a calm discussion on this.

On another note: Is natural selection generally deemed wrong? If so, why? I've been thinking lately that it might be the most general-populace sufficient path for society to trend on. But something tells me I'm not getting all the information.

~Thanks for reading my post.
 
Ccf

loseyourname said:
And what does PETA consider to be abused or mistreated? What are the other factual inaccuracies - on the page devoted to PETA?
The CCF-(Center for Consumer Freedom) is an organization not dedicated to consumer freedom, but to the freedom of industry to do as they want...they are funded by the tobacco, restaurant and other food supply industries to put down any organization that stops thier companies from making money...this is a smear campaign.

I seen many debates on TV with CEO of the CCF and the president of PETA...and I have to say the PETA person completly out shone the CCF guy-- her agenda to me seemed pure and for the betterment of the world....imho. :smile:
 
Monique said:
About the serial killers "The mutilation of animals did not create the serial killing behaviour", the lack of empathy for living beings is a traitmark of serial killers.
Yes, but also for many other poeple as well, like i said before.

Monique said:
Just the other week I watched an interview with 'America's most dangerous man', he used to work for the maffia and murdered all the people who couldn't bring up the money. He was ice-hard. He'd tell the stories of killing these people (the count was around 100-150) without showing any emotion towards them. One time, he said, a man was crying for his life, begging to god to safe him. Well, the killer gave him 30 min to pray, if there were a god, he'd be saved. This was the biggest mistake he ever made, he said, and telling this story really bothered him: obviously he allowed the man to have emotions.

Anyway, so at the end he starts telling about his family: wife and kids, and suddenly almost breaks down in tears. Where is emotions were completely lacking when talking about his victims, his emotions overwhelms him when realizing his wife has a serial-killer as a husband and he felt horrible for her to live with that fact. I was seriously surprised by those emotions.

I wondered: how about all the families of the men you killed, did he ever think about the damage he did to them?
What about the people in the penal system who put to death 100 prisoners a year? How are they somehow more justified than the mafia man? What of the families of the people sent to death by the judicial system? You seem not to be worried about that too much. Just the serial killer's victims. maybe the guy who injects the poison or throws the switch abused a few animals in his day. Does that not make him a serial killer, by your standards? he kills people. Shows no emotion. abused animals in his life. OOP! must be a serial killer. He should be sent to jail and put on death row. Then the person who executes him will go through the same process, then sooner or later the world will be left with no one, all because your criteria for a serial killer includes the abuse of animals.

Monique said:
You never answered my question whether a man beating his wife, to release a primal urge, should be left unpunished. Or in certain countries where it is ok for a man to mutilate his wife if she's suspected to have glanced at another man. Isn't it our duty to go into those countries and better the situation, give humanitarian help? Ever heard of amnesty international?
The man should be punished, in this culture, because the abuse of another human being who does not deserve it ( IN THE WESTERN CULTURE) is not right. therefore he should be punished. In those other countries, where wife-mutilation takes place, we have no moral justification to help them, unless they ask us to help them whereby their culture must agree to shed their bias and adopt our morals. The thing in Iraq.. I've never heard any evidence of the people there asking us to come in and help them. If they did, then the action was justified. If not, then it was wrong of us to go in there and change that culture.

Monique said:
About your fish example: morals are based on the balance of receiving benefit and inflicting damage...
...*The research must serve an important goal
*There is no suitable alternative to reach that goal
*Not more animals are used than required
The same rules apply when it comes to the use of human embryo's, with a further restriction that the research must be aborted 14 days after fertilization (that's when the notochord, the placenta starts developing). You can think the same way about the fishery.

First of all, the goal of catching fish does not mean anything for survival. We catch fish for the sport. We suffocate them for the fun of it. Does this not constitute as torture, according to your book? Also, many times there's no limit to how many fish you catch or not. If there is, it is because there's a balance to keep the population of fish at in order to allow for further seasons of fishing.. not because we "care" about their "emotions".


By the way.. all this talk and I never once asked: How do you know the chickens even have emotions???? yes they felt pain, but the feeling of pain is nothing more than a nervous system reflex. Love, sadness, happiness, joy, sorrow, etc are all emotions unfelt and unaffected by the nervous system. They are brought on by the mind, as well as certain chemical balances in the brain. Obviously chickens do not have the same brain structure as we do, so how do you know they too feel "sorrow, suffering, torture". Just because there is pain (reflexes of the nervous system) does not
mean there is emotional value. I mean this can be seen with my fish example again. To fish, some people use an earthworm on their hook. This includes such glorious actions as threading the hook through the worm's body. Worms obviously have nervous systems, thus they have the reflex of pain. But are you willing to go as far as to say they are "suffering"??? Are you going to now give earthworms human traits?
 
Moonbear said:
How is it logic? Explain that, please. I don't see anything logical about not imposing one's own morals on others. Afterall, if they are that important to you, wouldn't it be more logical to, indeed, impose them upon others? If I didn't feel the need to expect such moral behavior of others, why would I expect it of myself either?
It's logic which guarantees the most survival of all species/cultures. If they are that important to a culture, doesn't mean they would be to another.
Moonbear said:
And where do you find morals in nature, other than humans? Many philosophers would argue that morality is what makes us human, and what distinguishes as separate from other animals. It is because we have morality that we are expected to act against our instincts, at least according to certain philosophies.
I didn't say you could find morals in nature.. I said you can find this logic in nature. Most species of animals are territorial, forming their own herds, groups, packs, flocks, etc. Also, among those species are certain guidelines, or rules of logic, that the species generally follows to ensure the greatest survival of the species. One of these guidelines appears to be to not go into other herds/packs/groups/whatever and completely change the way those animals survive. Never in nature do you see a "Lion King" scenario.

Moonbear said:
Isn't it precisely because we are different, and presumably better, than animals that we are under the moral obligation to care for them?
Humans should not assume MORAL responsibilty to care for animals. They've cared for themselves the last million years, why should we all of a sudden think we are somehow their decision makers? That is just purely egotistical and VERY VERY whiggish.
 
Ad Infinitum NAU said:
By the way.. all this talk and I never once asked: How do you know the chickens even have emotions???? yes they felt pain, but the feeling of pain is nothing more than a nervous system reflex. Love, sadness, happiness, joy, sorrow, etc are all emotions unfelt and unaffected by the nervous system. They are brought on by the mind, as well as certain chemical balances in the brain. Obviously chickens do not have the same brain structure as we do, so how do you know they too feel "sorrow, suffering, torture".
Emotions are a function of the nervous system. The brain is a part of the nervous system. I know that they have emotions through the same mechanisms that I use to determine that humans have emotions--through observation of behavior and brain structure. I am highly skeptical of earthworms being sentient (capable of subjective experience), but I am completely sure that chickens are sentient.
 

Moonbear

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,349
51
Dissident Dan said:
Emotions are a function of the nervous system. The brain is a part of the nervous system. I know that they have emotions through the same mechanisms that I use to determine that humans have emotions--through observation of behavior and brain structure. I am highly skeptical of earthworms being sentient (capable of subjective experience), but I am completely sure that chickens are sentient.
I wouldn't be as certain of that. Emotions would involve cortical areas. Chickens have a far less developed cortex than humans. A bird brain is quite different from a mammalian brain.

Though I'm not sure it's relevant to the issue anyway. What matters is that they feel pain, not whether they then are sad or mad about it.

I'm also can't recall now how we got into the whole topic of imposing morals upon other cultures. Is there a culture that favors stomping and throwing around live chickens? Were those people in that video members of that culture? I haven't heard any arguments it was part of their religious beliefs or observing some cultural ritual that involved throwing chickens against walls.
 
loseyourname said:
Just so you won't question the source this time, all of the following is directly from the PETA website:
It seems to me that your criticisms of PETA are based on your pre-conceived interpretations, rather than what is actually written on the site.

For instance, you use the "animals are not ours to use ..." quotation and conclude:

loseyourname said:
There you go. They believe animals (all animals, as they do not draw any line here) have rights equal to those of a human being. Clearly this includes the cockroach. If experimenting on a cockroach produced a cure for cancer, PETA would not approve. Would you?
even though the quote clearly says that animals "deserve consideration of their best interests" and nothing about equality of rights. Then you bring your cockroach in and through its virtue you produce a cure for cancer as though the "experimenting" and the "cure" are necessarily causally linked.


Next we take the Schweitzer quote in which is written "A man is really ethical only when he obeys the constraint laid on him to aid all life which he is able to help" and turn it into a crusade for earthworms:

loseyourname said:
Equal consideration to earthworms is always nice, even though they have no CNS and can't feel a thing.
completely ignoring the point of the quote which was that humans have an obligation to aid all life. This is not really such an unusual or revolutionary idea as it has been echoed by many (religious and otherwise) throughout the centuries - in fact, that's how the 'humane' got into 'humanity'.

Let's skip your gnats, ants and French Resistance interpretations which are really bizarre, and go right to your final conclusion:

loseyourname said:
"Helping animals is not any more or less important than helping human beings they are both important." There you go. Humans are no more important than animals, and it is clear that they include insects when they say "animals." So I was right to say that they consider a cockroach to be just as valuable as a human. Do you believe this, Elizabeth?
There's that cockroach of yours again!

Now you seem to think that PETA is saying that "Humans are no more important than animals" simply because they take their work seriously. What a strange conclusion to come to! Please note that it clearly says "Helping animals is not any more or less important than helping human beings" and not "animals are not any more or less important than human beings" which is how you choose to 'interpret' it.

PETA is a non-profit with a mandate to help animals (which by the way, they happen to do extremely effectively despite a couple of comments to the contrary on this thread). This is why people from all walks of life support them. This is why they vigorously opposed the Pilgrim's Pride workers cruelty and brought it to the attention of the public.

If I were to support PETA financially, I would expect them to use all their energies to foster animal rights and animal welfare issues. To expect them to advocate for human issues officially would absurd, because I would obviously give my dollars to an organization whose focus would be appropriately different. I certainly don't expect the Non-Smokers Rights Association to officially advocate for the Family Caregivers Support Society. In fact, I would hope that whatever the personal feelings of the former for caregivers, they would consider their own mandate to be foremost in their actions.

Some people use the old "if you care for animals, then you are not caring for humans" trick to discredit animal rights activists, but what they don't realize is that many AR activists are also deeply committed to human rights. However, that is an individual and personal option - not an official mandate.

Elizabeth has argued fairly and honestly throughout this thread. However, her most telling comment is that some people tend to criticize PETA without knowing or even wanting to know what that organization is really about.

In friendship,
prad
 
Last edited:

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,717
4
physicsisphirst said:
even though the quote clearly says that animals "deserve consideration of their best interests" and nothing about equality of rights. Then you bring your cockroach in and through its virtue you produce a cure for cancer as though the "experimenting" and the "cure" are necessarily causally linked.
What the hell are you trying to say? That experimentation on animals never results in curing disease? Of course there's a link. In fact, it's part of the process that every single drug must go through, by law, before it can be tested on humans. Now would you prefer we kill a couple of lab rats or we kill a couple of humans? By opposing experimentation on animals - which is what PETA does - you impose the only alternative: experimentation on humans first. This means that humans are going to die. It's one way or the other. Drugs have to be tested somehow.

Next we take the Schweitzer quote in which is written "A man is really ethical only when he obeys the constraint laid on him to aid all life which he is able to help" and turn it into a crusade for earthworms:

completely ignoring the point of the quote which was that humans have an obligation to aid all life.
And I contend this is wrong. It is stupid to consider a man unethical if he steps on earthworms. Earthworms do not have brains; they do not feel anything. They could care less if you step on them because they don't care about anything. Should we also have respect for the harmless bacteria we kill every time we wash our hands or brush our teeth? They certainly weren't doing anything wrong.

Let's skip your gnats, ants and French Resistance interpretations which are really bizarre, and go right to your final conclusion:
No, what's bizarre is comparing a terrorist organization to the French Resistance. Do you support the actions of the ALF?

Now you seem to think that PETA is saying that "Humans are no more important than animals" simply because they take their work seriously. What a strange conclusion to come to! Please note that it clearly says "Helping animals is not any more or less important than helping human beings" and not "animals are not any more or less important than human beings" which is how you choose to 'interpret' it.
All right, you know what? This is getting really frustrating. What did I say that was different from what you said? If helping animals is no less important then helping humans, how is there not the implication that animals are no less important than humans?

PETA is a non-profit with a mandate to help animals (which by the way, they happen to do extremely effectively despite a couple of comments to the contrary on this thread). This is why people from all walks of life support them. This is why they vigorously opposed the Pilgrim's Pride worker's cruelty and brought it to the attention of the public.
Good for them. I'm sure they do a lot of great work. They also hold stupid stances on the use of animals for research and they openly support a terrorist organization.

Elizabeth has argued fairly and honestly throughout this thread. However, her most telling comment is that some people tend to criticize PETA without knowing or even wanting to know what that organization is really about.

In friendship,
prad
Perhaps, but I don't think you can accuse me of that. I've taken the time to look for third-party evaluation of them as well as look at their own website and official statements. I don't see how much more I could do to find out what they are really about.

To be fair, I don't have any problem with most of what they do.
 

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top