PETA

[angusr]

Today around noon I was down by Harvard Square here in Cambridge picking up some skates and I stumbled across a PETA protest right by the T station . . . 5 nude girls and 1 nude guy protesting animal cruelty etc.. Nothing gets my attention like a pair of boobs, so I've been thinking a bit about these PETA guys today. I'm so sick of Bush sucks/Kerry sucks threads, so let's see if anybody has an opinion on animal rights and that type of stuff.

Personally I find PETA one of the most frustrating, stupid and irresponsible organizations out there, and yet on some level I admire their conviction (no matter how misplaced I think it is). I had family who lived in Wisconsin for a while and there was a mink farm nearby that had been raided countless times by PETA activists who basically "freed" the minks. All they accomplished was near bankrupcy for the mink farmer, and a more cruel and near-term death for the mink that were freed. I guess I'm rambling, but it seems to me that when we look at nature we see living organisms using other organisms to survive. They kill and eat them, infect them, or sometimes even form symbiotic type relationships, but strangely never seem to have much regard for their 'rights'. Can anyone explain why humans should be any different?

 

[Oceans11]

I believe its because someone alleged at some point that we were civilised and intelligent and superior to the beasts

..but don't quote me on that, it could be another Republican lie.

 

[FloydGondolli]

PETA has become a borderline terrorist organization.

As long as there are human beings going hungry and living on the streets, groups like PETA should not exist. The people in such groups should instead focus their energies on feeding and helping their fellow man.

In my view, humans come first, animals come second.

If it is necessary to kill 10,000 animals in researching medicines and medical procedures that will save human lives then so be it.

 

[Shotgun]

I don't see much conviction out of PETA other than attempting to drum up as much publicity as possible. They make a mockery out of people who believe strongly in animal rights, and do their 'cause' far more harm than good.

I'm sure it brings in the money though. The dumber the stance, the more newsworthy it is.

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - A truckload of veggie burgers wasn't enough to get a small central Oklahoma town to change its name to Veggieville.
Members of Slaughterville's town council amicably heard presentations by members of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals before voting against the suggestion Tuesday night.
PETA officials contend the current name conjures up images of violence against animals.

 

[PatPatriot]

Let me tell ya somthing...nothin taste better than a hamburger on PETA bread.

 

[chonce]

I admire vegatarians for thier convictions and resolve. I could never be one...I like meat too much, but those that dont eat meat...I can understand them not wanting the animals to suffer.

THe Peta people are just to insane. However some of them have nice boobs.

 

[Oceans11]

I'm not into hurting things for non eating purposes, but I would never give up meat, no way hose.

Most hedge munchers I've known eat a heck of a lot of chocolate and dairy products, which isn't exactly healthy eating.

---------------------------------------
Oh, and vegetarians tend to live in very rich (relatively speaking) or very poor places.
The former because you can afford to have a choice, the latter because you don't.

 

[xpanda]

PETA is an often misled organisation, but I think their heart is in the right place. I am appalled at animal research for frivolous things like makeup etc. and many of the conditions that animals live in on farms are equally appalling. I'm not a vegetarian, although I wish I could be, but I do volunteer at my local SPCA once a week.

I think most people agree that animals are not protected enough in our society ... the difficulty is in exposing the problems to a public that, frankly, would rather not know.

 

[Massmilwaukee]

People Eating Tasty Animals

 

[bulldog77]

There are two constants with PETA members, with few exceptions:
1)They grew up and live in cities or suburbs and couldn't survive for 3 days in nature.
2)They only have protests over the killing of the 'cute' animals.

 

[angusr]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I think most people agree that animals are not protected enough in our society ... the difficulty is in exposing the problems to a public that, frankly, would rather not know.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know . . . I think that beyond the basic requirement that humans don't subject animals to pointless wanton cruelty and suffering etc... animals have enough protection. I would hate to see an animal bill of rights enshrined in law. bulldog is right, people are so far removed from the farm/rural life that animals have become like cartoon characters or loveable-type animated stuffed toys. People who think that their cat loves them need to have their heads examined.

 

[xpanda]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Angus Ontario:

I don't know . . . I think that beyond the basic requirement that humans don't subject animals to pointless wanton cruelty and suffering etc... animals have enough protection. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess it depends on what your definition of pointless wanton cruelty is. As an example, off the coast of South Africa, they've dropped nets designed to keep sharks away from swimmers after 39 bathers were attacked by sharks in a five-year period ... now 1200 sharks (all kinds, not just the man-eating ones) per year die in those nets. No offense to the swimmers in the region, but 39 attacks (not deaths) in five years for leaping into known-to-be-dangerous waters is really nothing compared to 6000 shark deaths since that time. The option of constructing a concrete barrier instead was thrown on the table but was deemed too costly (not true, though in the long run, since nets require human labour to maintain and empty) to be viable.

Any time animals die for reasons other than food, self-defence, natural causes or, sometimes, medical research, it should be deemed pointless wanton cruelty.

While I am with PETA in principle, I agree that their tactics are highly misguided. Just another example of a well-intentioned organisation lacking the business sense to formulate solid action plans that can be taken seriously by the general public, as this thread serves to prove.

 

[jointpleasures]

I'm sure, if it is any consolation to the PETA heads that all these animals 'souls' go to heaven.

 

[angusr]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xpanda:
No offense to the swimmers in the region, but 39 attacks (not deaths) in five years for leaping into known-to-be-dangerous waters is really nothing compared to 6000 shark deaths since that time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is where you and I part ways. Assuming we are not dealing with endangered species, I would gladly sacrifice 6000 sharks to avoid maiming or killing 39 people.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Any time animals die for reasons other than food, self-defence, natural causes or, sometimes, medical research, it should be deemed pointless wanton cruelty.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Again I will respectfully disagree with you. I like leather shoes and have no problem with people wearing fur. I also have no problem with animals dying so that people can have the dignity of working. It's possible that in the beach case that you cite, tourism dollars depended heavily on the tourists' perception that they would not be eaten by a shark if they decided to take a dip in the ocean.
Here's another one - sometimes animal populations need to be culled to protect other species (ex: seal hunt to protect cod stocks) - this is also not cruel but if we start to assign rights to animals we are going to have to start identifying a hierarchy of species (is it OK to kill a mammal to save a lowly fish?).

Here is a question for you - is it wrong to swat a mosquito on my arm? If so, why? And if not, what's the distinction between this and a hunter humanely killing a wild turkey for sport?

 

[xpanda]

Swatting a mosquito on your arm, could, with a slight stretch of the imaginaion, be deemed self-defence. Big stretch, I know. Regarding your wild turkey comparison -- I am wholeheartedly against the killing of animals for sport. (Hell, I stopped fishing when I realised that what we were doing was akin to walking down the street and punching someone in the nose for no reason. I am also that person who sets those housing traps because traditional mousetraps really upset me.)

As for the killing of animals for population control purposes ... not against that, necessarily, and I do believe that hunting regulations are in fact modified from year to year based largely on the supply of the animal to be hunted. Of course, I'm no hunter, so I'm speculating.

But your claim that to implement this would require us to start identifying a hierarchy of species is rather laughable, don't you think, given much of the language in this thread. At the risk of sounding like a total bleeding heart, this 'above the laws of nature' attitude employed by us is decidedly arrogant. From a more conservative viewpoint, it's also unsustainable.

 

[angusr]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But your claim that to implement this would require us to start identifying a hierarchy of species is rather laughable, don't you think, given much of the language in this thread. At the risk of sounding like a total bleeding heart, this 'above the laws of nature' attitude employed by us is decidedly arrogant. From a more conservative viewpoint, it's also unsustainable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All I'm saying is that if you encoded 'animal rights' then these silly types of decisions (i.e. cod or seal) start to become real debates. Some policy guy in the Dept. of Fisheries is going to have to take this stuff into consideration.

Anyway, I agree with you that the idea that humans are above the laws of nature is arrogant, but we disagree about the consequences. I say that it's OK to kill a turkey for sport or to exterminate the mice in my apartment precisely because we're not above the laws of nature. If you piss off a tiger, he kills you and doesn't give a second thought about your rights . . .

In my opinion, once we eliminate religion from the equation, even the concept of human rights is just a convenient fiction that helps us build a tolerable society.