PETA activist group or whacko brainwashing cult?

[Pengwuino]

Moonbear:

In a sense, PETA is just taking the next logical moral step from animal welfare to animal rights. The problem is, most people aren't even open to the idea of animal welfare. As long as they get their steak, they aren't particularly concerned where it came from, or how the animal which provided it was treated. Most of the time, they don't even think about it. And hey! They like the taste, so that justifies the killing of animals, right?

So what exactly are people suppose to eat? And we have a hard enough time dealing with peoples rights around the world so we should divert our attention to animals rights?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I didn't say we should see all living things as equal. In fact, I don't see anybody saying that. That is a strawman.

Did you think about the animal which died the last time you munched into a juicy cheeseburger?

And hey! They like the taste, so that justifies the killing of animals, right?

Sounds to me like you have a problem with animals being killed for food. If I got the wrong impression then maybe you shoudl be more careful about your choice of words. And no you did not say ALL living things but why hold one above another? You seem to be backing up the idea that just because people look at animals as being lower then them doesn't mean we should be able to kill them for our purposes (perhaps you would say not even for food but I'll leave this open since you may or may not take exception). The logic to me has always seemed to break down. People who eat meat say that they are lesser than humans and so it's ok to kill them for food. People against this say that animals are not lower life forms so they should not be killed for food. But plants are lower life forms so we should be able to kill them for food/shelter/ect.

 

[Moonbear]

Moonbear:

In a sense, PETA is just taking the next logical moral step from animal welfare to animal rights. The problem is, most people aren't even open to the idea of animal welfare. As long as they get their steak, they aren't particularly concerned where it came from, or how the animal which provided it was treated. Most of the time, they don't even think about it. And hey! They like the taste, so that justifies the killing of animals, right?

I've posted here in other threads about how growing crops actually harms (kills) more animals than using animals themselves as food. Search on terms like "habitat loss." We are part of an ecosystem ourselves, and we have a role of omnivore. Converting enough wild lands to fields for crops would result in a huge loss of biodiversity, of both plant and animal species. If you are truly concerned about the killing of animals, then you must balance not just the death of domestic species, but that of wild species. You also must consider not just mammals and fowl, but all birds, amphibians, fish, reptiles, insects, arthropods, etc. They are all animals. There is no way we could produce enough crops to sustain the human population without insecticides, which not only kill the insects, but the birds that feed on them, and the fish where the water run-off winds up, etc. Basically, when you really look at the big picture of the entire ecosystem, it's a lot harder to justify a vegetarian lifestyle as being better for animals than an omnivorous lifestyle. As with everything, balance is important.

 

[Pengwuino]

Pengwuino:

As you are obviously unaware of Australian culture, I can understand that you might underestimate how much Australians know about the US.

I don't know how you draw the conclusion from that that PETA holds animal life above human life. It is simply saying that animals do not choose to participate in Arafat's (or anybody else's) war. They should not be forced into it. I doubt they were commenting on the morality of suicide attacks per se, since that is outside their particular area of concern and expertise.

The fact that humans are killed in wars does not making killing animals in wars ok. Two wrongs don't make a right. But you knew that, didn't you?

As usual, blind nationalism is clouding your sense of logic. The US population knows more about what PETA does in the US because... obviously... we live here. Unless you read various American newspapers every morning and watch the tv wondering whats going on in America, i think its logical to say that your average american knows more about whats going on in America then the average Australian does about whats going on in America. Its simple logic, I am not saying anythinga bout australian culture or the people there and i do not see how in gods name you can be offended unless you take offense to people not holding up your own opinion above all other externalities.

PETA shows clear contempt for human life. They see people dieing in the middle east and there only course of action is "please dont hurt the animals". Now, i dont know whats more important, a donkey dieing, or a bomb going off and killing 20 or 30 innocent humans.... but lets just say for some reason, ill give up a cow before i give up my neighbors. Does this mean i think animals should be electrified for fun? Maybe to some people! But to me, its just caring more about a few children dieing on a school bus then a few pigs on a farm. If we could somehow eliminate all cruelty to animals, thatd be great by itself. But if we have the choice of curing heart disease or stopping cruelty, i think ill choose the heart disease cure.

 

[hypatia]

the Peta book for small children

 

[James R]

Pengwuino:

So what exactly are people suppose to eat?

There are plenty of things to eat which aren't animals. I suppose you've heard of vegetables, for example.

And we have a hard enough time dealing with peoples rights around the world so we should divert our attention to animals rights?

Can't we look at both? Or can we only handle one thought at a time?


TheStatutoryApe:

Sounds to me like you have a problem with animals being killed for food. If I got the wrong impression then maybe you shoudl be more careful about your choice of words.

Sounds to me like you're a bit defensive about your meat eating ways. Tell me: how do you personally JUSTIFY killing animals for food?

You seem to be backing up the idea that just because people look at animals as being lower then them doesn't mean we should be able to kill them for our purposes (perhaps you would say not even for food but I'll leave this open since you may or may not take exception).

That's right. I don't think that just because some people see animals as being "lower" (as you put it) that they are therefore justified in killing them (for whatever purpose).

Slave owners used to see their slaves as "lower". Did that justify them treating the slaves harshly, or even keeping them as slaves in the first place?

People who eat meat say that they are lesser than humans and so it's ok to kill them for food.

What do YOU say?

People against this say that animals are not lower life forms so they should not be killed for food. But plants are lower life forms so we should be able to kill them for food/shelter/ect.

The argument is more subtle than that. It is not based on a heirarchical ranking of life forms.

Why not start by asking: "Can this thing I'm killing to eat feel pain?"

That might get you at least to first base, to start considering animal welfare.

 

[Pengwuino]

lol hypatia... Thats the problem with most animal "rights" activists. They think people gather up little kittens and rabbits and start hacking at them with knives and chainsaws and wear the fur. My godfather is a foremen at a dairy and when they kill the cows, its quick and painless (.22 to the head from rather close range). Some might see this as so cruel and blah blah blah... but if i was going to die, id want it quick and wouldnt want to see it coming. Whats the alternative? slowely chopping them up limb by limb or slowely electricuting them?

 

[Math Is Hard]

Good heavens, hypatia! I have been a PETA supporter in the past but I have never seen anything like that. Makes me wonder if they've gone off the deep end. I always kept them very distinct in my mind from groups like ALF, but maybe there is more cross-over than I thought.

 

[James R]

Moonbear:

I've posted here in other threads about how growing crops actually harms (kills) more animals than using animals themselves as food. Search on terms like "habitat loss." We are part of an ecosystem ourselves, and we have a role of omnivore. Converting enough wild lands to fields for crops would result in a huge loss of biodiversity, of both plant and animal species.

Here's the other side of that argument: Suppose you kill a cow to eat. For every pound of meat you get from the cow, the cow had to eat maybe 10 pounds of grass or other feed. If you ate the feed yourself, instead of second-hand, you'd SAVE cropland.

Have you looked into that?

There is no way we could produce enough crops to sustain the human population without insecticides, which not only kill the insects, but the birds that feed on them, and the fish where the water run-off winds up, etc.

Sorry, but my first impression is that this is just wrong. At the moment, we give over large areas of land for grazing of out meat animals. Those areas COULD be used for crops, and more efficiently.

At least you're trying to mount an argument, though, instead of giving the normal defensive response.

 

[Pengwuino]

There are plenty of things to eat which aren't animals. I suppose you've heard of vegetables, for example.

Really... hmm... Is it because plants are not living things? (shhh, no one tell him, its a trap!)

Can't we look at both? Or can we only handle one thought at a time?

We do but groups like PETA demand this front page news and demand only their voice be heard in schools and on the news and such. I mean look at how much we have gone through to better the life of animals that are soon to be used for food compared to how far we have gone into helping say, poverty.

Sounds to me like you're a bit defensive about your meat eating ways. Tell me: how do you personally JUSTIFY killing animals for food?

Ever been eaten by a shark or a crocadile? Well, once you have been, then you can tell me that its unjustifiable to eat an animal. PS, this is rhetorical.

 

[Moonbear]

Good heavens, hypatia! I have been a PETA supporter in the past but I have never seen anything like that. Makes me wonder if they've gone off the deep end. I always kept them very distinct in my mind from groups like ALF, but maybe there is more cross-over than I thought.

I didn't look at that tax return hypatia linked to earlier in the thread, but I'm pretty sure it's probably the one that is circulated because it shows somewhere on there a donation to ALF.

I've never seen such a thing distributed by PETA before either. Hypatia, are you sure that's legit and not a spoof? That seems extreme even for them. Even though there are quotes from the founders that show they sympathize with groups such as ALF, they tend to play it cool under the PETA organization's name.

 

[Pengwuino]

I've never seen such a thing distributed by PETA before either. Hypatia, are you sure that's legit and not a spoof? That seems extreme even for them. Even though there are quotes from the founders that show they sympathize with groups such as ALF, they tend to play it cool under the PETA organization's name.

Im sure he meant it as a spoof.... or at least i hope he did haha

 

[James R]

Pengwuino:

Thats the problem with most animal "rights" activists. They think people gather up little kittens and rabbits and start hacking at them with knives and chainsaws and wear the fur.

Now you're attempting to stereotype animal rights activists.

Why not try facing the issues, rather than making ad hominem attacks?

Killing pet animals is beside the point. The systematic killing of animals for food is the issue here. The battle over the ill treatment of pets is at least partly in the public eye. People don't like the idea that their pet cat Fluffy may come to harm. But a cow they never see from their city apartment? No worries.

My godfather is a foremen at a dairy and when they kill the cows, its quick and painless (.22 to the head from rather close range). Some might see this as so cruel and blah blah blah... but if i was going to die, id want it quick and wouldnt want to see it coming. Whats the alternative?

Er... not killing them. Rather obvious, isn't it?

 

[Pengwuino]

You've done your own stereotyping as well... now lets see your response to the rest of my posts... lets see if you are a hypocrit (although you already alluded to the fact that you are).

 

[James R]

Pengwuino:

You really should think about the knee-jerk responses you're giving, just a little.

We do but groups like PETA demand this front page news and demand only their voice be heard in schools and on the news and such. I mean look at how much we have gone through to better the life of animals that are soon to be used for food compared to how far we have gone into helping say, poverty.

Do you know how much or how little has been done to better the lives of animals? I doubt it. I get the impression you're speaking from a position of almost no knowledge.

Ever been eaten by a shark or a crocadile? Well, once you have been, then you can tell me that its unjustifiable to eat an animal. PS, this is rhetorical.

How many people are eaten by sharks and crocodiles each year? Now many crocodiles and sharks are eaten by people each year? Want to compare?

And, while we're at it, how many people are eaten by cows each year, do you think?

 

[Pengwuino]

Awww you dodged my question! Now im sad. Do YOU know whats been done in the US for animals?

And you also missed the point. Animals are very much willing to kill people for food. They are even more willing to kill eachother for food. Sounds like its only human to do what every other animal does.

And again, why do you think we should eat vegetables instead?

 

[Moonbear]

Moonbear:



Here's the other side of that argument: Suppose you kill a cow to eat. For every pound of meat you get from the cow, the cow had to eat maybe 10 pounds of grass or other feed. If you ate the feed yourself, instead of second-hand, you'd SAVE cropland.

Have you looked into that?



Sorry, but my first impression is that this is just wrong. At the moment, we give over large areas of land for grazing of out meat animals. Those areas COULD be used for crops, and more efficiently.

At least you're trying to mount an argument, though, instead of giving the normal defensive response.

You're wrong on both accounts. In the first case, cattle, and other ruminants, can digest more of the plant than we can, thus they are far more efficient at digesting that food, and in turn, we are more efficient at digesting the animal meat than the plant matter. For example, take a cornfield. What can we eat? Just the kernels of corn off the cob, the rest is waste. What can a cow eat? Everything, the stem, the cob, the leaves, no waste.

On the second account, animals can graze on land that crops cannot be grown on. Steep and rocky mountainsides, for example. With responsible range management, the rangeland is not damaged and native species are not killed off (just kept pruned, as they would be by any natural grazing species, such as deer). Contrast that with the need to plow up the land to plant crops. You dig up all the native species of plants, displace many native animals, and kill a bunch more, and replace all that biodiversity with a single crop species.

Now, I did say you need responsible range management when it comes to domestic animals, and that is a bit of a catch. But, if all the effort that was spent on animal rights was instead spent on protecting rangeland and ensuring ranchers did not permit their animals to overgraze, you'd save a lot more animals.

Of course we can't subsist on meat alone and do need some vegetables, but we currently can grow crops where we get the part of the crop that are edible to us and feed the rest that is inedible to us to the cattle or other ruminants. Hog farming is the one practice that may not provide us with much benefit, although, there has been increasing effort to use our food waste as hog feed; for example, think of how much food gets thrown away at school cafeterias every day. If it can be treated in a way that it isn't going to carry bacteria (such as cooking it again) while still retaining the nutrients, pigs basically can eat on our kitchen and table scraps. This is not yet ideal though, so hog farming remains controversial. Ruminants, such as cattle, sheep and goats, though, are much more efficient than for us to try eating plants only, and if we're going to destroy land to plant crops, we better make the most efficient use of it possible, which includes feeding the parts that are inedible to us to animals that are edible to us.

 

[hypatia]

http://www.furisdead.com/feat-momfur.asp

its a PETA sponsored site

 

[James R]

Pengwuino:

Awww you dodged my question! Now im sad. Do YOU know whats been done in the US for animals?

Yes. You have an SPCA which concerns itself with some animal welfare issues. But there are still many many factory farms and battery chicken farms where animals are treated with great cruelty solely for the purpose of meat production. You can read about some of these practices on the PETA web site. Go take a look.

Animals are very much willing to kill people for food. They are even more willing to kill each other for food. Sounds like its only human to do what every other animal does.

Do animals factory farm each other? Or do they take only what they need?

Some animals, it can be argued, have to eat meat. Do humans have to eat meat?

What is the moral justification for killing animals? After all, humans are supposed to be moral creatures, aren't they? Or is it "might is right" - we do it because we can, and therefore it is right?

And again, why do you think we should eat vegetables instead?

Because animals are conscious beings which can feel pain and which probably have some expectation of a future life. In contrast, there is no evidence that vegetables possess these qualities.

Come on, put in a little effort. You should be able to think of some of these things yourself. They are simple arguments.

You still haven't given me your argument FOR killing animals. Do you intend to, or are you going to avoid the issue?

 

[James R]

Moonbear:

I can't really refute what you're saying. I'd need to research the issues in much more depth than I have. So, let's assume you are right about efficiency considerations regarding the use of land etc.

The next set of issues to confront are the moral ones. Even assuming that it is more efficient to eat animals than plants, does that make it right?

Do you have a moral justification for meat eating?

 

[ron damon]

Whatever. I can't solve the food dilemma in the short term. So what? There are plenty of instances where animals are abused and tortured for absolutely no valid reason. Organizations like PETA draw attention to the oft-forgotten fact that making living beings suffer for our superficial and idiotic purposes (fashion, sport) is immoral.

Hundreds years ago a popular entertainment for kings involved throwing cats in a big sack, sealing it, and then setting them on fire. The poor animals' howls from being burnt alive were found irresistibly funny by the royalty.

500 years from now people will turn their heads in disgust at our practice of sustaining ourselves on dead animals' carcasses...

 

[Pengwuino]

haha, for 1, give me a reputable source about the "cruelty" animals face. You might as well tell me to research the middle eastern conflict by talking to a suicide bomber right before he sets it off.

Also, animals dont factory farm eachother but as usual, your missing the reality of the situation. Very few people can just drive out after getting their starbucks coffee and pounce on a bear and kill him. Thus, we have to use factory farming. Your also switching your argument again. First it was "you cant kill animals period!" and now its "well... its wrong to kill them like a factory!". And what does eating to survive have to do with morality? We need to live, they are food, 1+1=2. Very few people buy $400 worth of meat, eat 2 hamburgers from it, and throw the rest away.

Also, where is your proof that animals are conscious and have any expectations of future life and what proof do you have that plants do not possess these qualities. Plants live, need food, grow, develop, reproduce, etc very much like animals. Sounds like your being hypocritical and simply resorting to insults instead of putting forth real arguments. And although ive said it about 4 times, ill say it again, you kill animals to eat. Humans must eat. If an animal had the chance, it would eat you too. No squirrels are protesting for better treatement of humans. No group of sharks have ever jailed another shark for eating a human.

 

[Moonbear]

Moonbear:

I can't really refute what you're saying. I'd need to research the issues in much more depth than I have. So, let's assume you are right about efficiency considerations regarding the use of land etc.

The next set of issues to confront are the moral ones. Even assuming that it is more efficient to eat animals than plants, does that make it right?

Do you have a moral justification for meat eating?

You'd have to show me that it's universally immoral, and not just a cultural/religious view of morality that prevents me from eating meat. As I've presented already, if your major concern is killing of animals, then less animals are killed by eating meat than by maintaining a strictly vegetarian diet for everyone (a few vegetarians here and there aren't going to throw off the balance, so if you are vegetarian, I am not going to worry over it and tell you to change your lifestyle, only that you should consider that those of us who consume meat are not doing any worse). So, if the ultimate goal is to minimize the number of animals killed for our benefit, then the way to achieve that is by a mixed diet of vegetables and meat, and it seems it would be immoral to NOT eat meat if the result of that is to kill many more animals than by choosing to eat meat.

Of course the biggest problem we have, no matter how you slice it, is that there are too many people to have any form of agriculture that does not in some way harm the environment. We can no longer survive on subsistence agriculture or through hunting/fishing/gathering nuts and berries (which given our population size would decimate those food sources as well), etc. We have to have agriculture that involves domesticated crops and animals (and yes, those crops are domesticated as well...they in no way resemble the wild species they originated from) to sustain human populations.

 

[ron damon]

where is your proof that animals are conscious and have any expectations of future life

I lived with a cockatiel for many years, and am a reasonably intelligent person. Animals are conscious in the same fundamental way you or me are. No doubt about it.

No squirrels are protesting for better treatement of humans. No group of sharks have ever jailed another shark for eating a human.

Animals, the whole planet, is under our stewardship. We are the man in charge. Either we start giving a sh*t, or the mess we're heading to will do away with us.

 

[Pengwuino]

So your scientific proof is personal experience? Well then i guess aliens exist and psychics are omnipotent beings!

And what is this "mess" we're heading to?