I've never really paid any attention to PETA. I am all for the humane treatment of animals, but they see to be a little too hysterical for me. Also, I really like to eat food. I StumbleUpon'd this infographic and was interested at some of the findings.


Peta vs Animals
Via: Online Schools

Tags: animals, peta, vegetarian

Views: 88

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Well Matt, I was trying to find out, and that's why I was asking if someone had more information, instead of accepting the claims of the anti-PETA poster at face value. You don't have to pull out your "I'm more logical than you are" card. Atheists sure are more stuck up.
Hey Proq Rock,

I apologize for offending you. I was being lazy and hit the last 'Reply To' I saw after reading the comments on the page. My comment about logical fallacies wasn't directed at you, but as a gentle reminder to everyone. Tone is difficult to convey on a forum, and I should have chosen my words more carefully.

Thanks,
Matt
Grr, my reply-to button isn't working for this thread - anyone know how to fix it? I've already tried everything in the support page...

John D:
Aaron - I have no problem with killing animals. It's PETA that keeps telling me I am wrong. I think when PETA kills animals it is called hypocrisy... right?

I don't see why - it's the same thing as euthanasia in humans. There's no contradiction in being anti-murder but pro-euthanasia; all that you're doing is making a distinction between living and survival, which aren't the same thing.


Re: Prog Rock Girl:

From PETA's About Us page on pets:

We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of "pet keeping"—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as "pets"—never existed. The international pastime of domesticating animals has created an overpopulation crisis; as a result, millions of unwanted animals are destroyed every year as "surplus." This selfish desire to possess animals and receive love from them causes immeasurable suffering, which results from manipulating their breeding, selling or giving them away casually, and depriving them of the opportunity to engage in their natural behavior. Their lives are restricted to human homes where they must obey commands and can only eat, drink, and even urinate when humans allow them to.

[...]

Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and "set them free." What we want is for the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people to adopt animals (preferably two so that they can keep each other company when their human companions aren't home) from pounds or shelters—never from pet shops or breeders—thereby reducing suffering in the world.


So, it seems to me that while they're not in favor of pet ownership, they're not planning to outlaw pets any time soon, either; and in any case, a caring home is a much better environment than a shelter.

I'm not an expert on PETA's alleged affiliation with the ALF. In their FAQ page, their response on the ALF is hardly condemnatory, and in one interview I saw (and don't remember the source to), Ingrid Newkirk stated re: the ALF that she "doesn't agree with their methods, but understands their motive" - I think that's an exact quote, though it may be a slight paraphrase.
Again, I can't reply to the actual comment, so...

John D.:

Yes, it is the same. The only difference is that the animals aren't in a position to make that decision for themselves. We can't just ask them which they'd prefer, so we have to try to make the best decision for the animals that we can. There is a huge difference between making a decision for an animal, trying to do what's best for that animal, and killing animals simply for the sheer joy of it.

And, for the other matter, just do a web search for "vegan cat food" and you'll find plenty of alternatives. And, even then, let's just say that's for whatever reason, it's impossible to be 100% vegan. So what? We can't completely eliminated poverty or crime, so should we just stop trying altogether? Of course not - and for the same reason, it wouldn't contradict vegan ethics if a 100% vegan lifestyle were impossible.
Again, I can't reply to the actual comment, so...

Aaron, be a browser whore like me. I rotate Chrome, Opera and Firefox - one of them will always work for whatever is a problem.

And I am not going to play whack-a-mole with you right now as to your comments. Sorry. I have a roast to get just right.
And as I've said before, I'll be happy to respond to your arguments when you actually get one.
Aaron: And as I've said before, I'll be happy to respond to your arguments when you actually get one.

Why? You ignore them as in the "too hard" basket. Ok, let's try again -

You exist in a state of displaced narcissism. You invest all of your emotion and intellectual energy in an external cause and in the process lose all empathic touch with anything that does not directly promote that cause. It ceases to exist or have value. Not quite solipsism, but a dance down the same path. This is like any ideology or -ism when taken to the point that you start to view any voice that disagrees as somewhat less than human. You lose touch with reality and you lose touch with your fellow (wo)men that are not in a similar state of narcissistic displacement and pursuing the same ideology.

I will repeat it again - the most disconnected and selfish people I have ever met have been new agers and vegans. Most of the time, they are both - it's some kind of natural symbiosis.

There you go champ. Spin off on whatever tangent you like, it is of no concern to me. I just know that, again, you will not answer, and that some time in the future, again, you will cough up the line "I'll be happy to respond to your arguments when you actually get one."
I have, actually, responded to this "argument" of yours two or three times:

Veganism is only one of several issues that I'm an activist for, so I don't see how your statement that I'm concerned only with animal rights issues could possibly stick, since it's obviously false; for someone who has regularly accused me of "typhos" it seems hypocritical of you to try to turn fighting for the rights of beings that can't stand up for themselves into narcissism, of all things; I don't view omnivores as any less human than vegans, just wrong on this particular issue; I don't care how many anecdotes you have of "disconnected" people who were also vegans, or rather, of vegans who you interpreted to be "disconnected"...

and even if every single one of these statements were true, you still wouldn't have a logical argument. It still wouldn't prove that veganism as an ethical philosophy is incorrect, nor would it change the horrible environmental damage being done to our planet by the consumption of animals. This is why I say you don't have an argument - everything you've stated is an attack on vegans as people, not on veganism as a philosophy. Vegans could be the nastiest, more awful people on the earth and it wouldn't prove that veganism is wrong. You, sir, are not just wrong, you are fractally wrong. How can I get through to you?
There's a difference between growing an animal for the explicit purpose of killing it and killing an animal that can't be saved.

Would it be permissible to euthanize a human being that was in terrible suffering and would die soon anyway, but you couldn't ask their opinion? On the other hand, would it be permissible to create a human being for the explicit purpose of killing them once they hit age 30? Don't pretend that the two situations are synonymous. They're not.

And secondly, I hardly see how our current laws are designed to promote the well-being of animals. Rather, they're to serve the capitalistic interests of human beings, and they're not only torturing and killing 10 billion animals, just in the USA, every single year, but it's also destroying our environment AND our health. You're being either being sarcastic or completely ignorant.
Seems like PETA nazis are trying to eliminate animal suffering by eliminating all the animals. That sure is an effective method. We need something similar for human suffering...wait, that's not new..
I should have known better than to get into an argument on the internet...
Probably.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service