PETA shoots self in foot again.

[RandFan]

It's always nice to have someone or something to despise. I despise PETA. Thanks PETA for continuing to make me think my opinion of you is correct.

PETA Campaign Enrages Jewish Group (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79920,00.html)

SAN DIEGO — An animal-rights campaign comparing the suffering of livestock to that of Holocaust victims is drawing sharp criticism from a leading Jewish group for "trivializing" the mass murder of Jews.

"The Holocaust on Your Plate" campaign by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals debuted this week in California and will make a national tour.

The display is a set of eight 6-foot-by-10-foot panels showing photographs of Holocaust victims -- emaciated men, crowds of people being forced onto trains, children behind barbed wire, heaps of human bodies -- set next to similar images of cattle, pigs and chickens.

The Anti-Defamation League denounced the project and PETA's appeal for support from the Jewish community as "outrageous, offensive and taking chutzpah to new heights." "The answer to bad speech is more speech"

Sometimes the bad speech speaks against itself. I think this is one of those times.

[subgenius]

I hope that this will wake people up and start a movement of good sane folks to speak up against this cultish menace.

[shemp]

I think I'll sacrifice a goat to Zeus today.

[subgenius]

Don't you just wish they'd shoot themselves in the head and put us out of our misery.

[Shane Costello]

There are laws against treating animals they way the victims of the holocaust were treated.

[Doctor X]

I wish I had a poster I saw of a large PETA demonstation with the banner:

This Protest Made Possible by Animal Research

--J.D.

[Thumper]

Hey y'all. Be good to PETA. I'm a member. Lifelong.

People for Eating Tasty Animals.


lol

[Blue Monk]

Please keep the PETA posts coming.

It amazes me that their absurd tactics even leave me speechless which is no small feat.

Well, not completely speechless, hehe.

Even if one agreed with their principles to the extreme degree that they do, how could anyone with an ounce of logic possibly believe that this would be an effective form of persuasion.

Their own actions show how clearly the are out of touch with reality far more succinctly than any oppositions criticism could ever hope to achieve.

I am all for the enforcement of existing laws against animal cruelty. Any specific cases they may cite would be in violation of existing laws and they are most certainly the isolated minority and not the norm. Bringing to the attention of any local authority any specific act of cruelty would be far more effective that a poorly conceived ad campaign.

But of course it is not the individual acts they are interested in. They want a ban on all consumption of animal products. I would very much like to hear what they think should be done with existing livestock that has been bred for thousands of years to be domesticated. Set you cows free to starve to death and die by the millions in the jaws of predators? Yeah, that would be real humane.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Blue Monk
I would very much like to hear what they think should be done with existing livestock that has been bred for thousands of years to be domesticated. Set you cows free to starve to death and die by the millions in the jaws of predators? Yeah, that would be real humane. My wife asked a co-worker that very question, the response, "yes, they would suffer and die but at least they would die naturally."

Well yeah, that makes all the difference.

[jimlintott]

A poster, eh. I don't know how many times I have to say this. Photographic film emulsion is mostly gelatin. Gelatin is an animal product.

PETA should avoid any photography if they won't use animal products. I'm pretty sure that photos of halocaust victims weren't shot with digital cameras.

They should avoid newspaper and magazine ads as well. Offset printing uses film in the process.

Pretty hard to avoid the use of animal products in the modern world.

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by jimlintott
A poster, eh. I don't know how many times I have to say this. Photographic film emulsion is mostly gelatin. Gelatin is an animal product.

PETA should avoid any photography if they won't use animal products. I'm pretty sure that photos of halocaust victims weren't shot with digital cameras.

They should avoid newspaper and magazine ads as well. Offset printing uses film in the process.

Pretty hard to avoid the use of animal products in the modern world.

Hey Jim, great post!

I'm sorry you've had to repeat yourself but I'm glad you did because I have never thought of this.

I wonder if Pamela Anderson knows this. Without photography she'd have to go back to the Dairy Queen, hehe.

Opps, that's right, no dairy.

[Kilted_Canuck]

So why don' t the PETA people let us use THEIR byproducts to make gelatin, and test possible harmful shampoos and drugs on them?

These animal treatment people would rather firebomb a lab than walk in and volunteer to be tested on, which I tHink makes them hipocrites.(ok, I know this is an overgeneralization of animal rights, but I'm too tired to differentiate between them all)

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by Kilted_Canuck
ok, I know this is an overgeneralization of animal rights, but I'm too tired to differentiate between them all

Yes, it is an overgeneralization, and a silly one.

In modern days, it doesn't make sense to continue to test cosmetics and such in animals, because it is usually an almost sadistic way of doing things, and there are alternatives.

Please note that I'm not talking about all animal testing, but the ones for which alternative ways of testing can be found.

Of course, when we're talking about raising animals for fur, meat, dairy or whatever, I have no problem with that. Of course I prefer to buy (whenever I can get the information), from the producers that give the best living conditions to their animals. It's the old "wallet democracy" thing. That and, of course, a happy cow makes a tastier steak.


Cheers

[Doctor X]

Just a little interesting factoid: [Interesting to whom?--Ed.]

When I were a lad I was in Bristol and witnessed a discussion given by the Home Secretary for The Security of Like Lots of Titles because British Like Titles and Protect the Animals in which he described regulation of animal testing.

Naturally, the Dray test--testing cosmetics in the eyes of particularly cute bunnies--came up.

There is really no alternative; however, he asked if anyone knew the "failure rate"--how many blind bunnies on the dole?

Basically, very little. "Cosmetic companies DO NOT want to waste the time and money designing a product that can harm someone, particularly blind them!"

--J.D.

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by Megalodon
Please note that I'm not talking about all animal testing, but the ones for which alternative ways of testing can be found.

[Smalso]

Another project which probably started out with the best of intentions and carried itself to extremes. (Extremes are almost always bad.) To my knowledge, not one of them has answered the questions about what they would do if they found their houses (or offices) being over-run by rats--or even cockroaches. And, if I am concerned with the ethical treatment of animals, what am I to feed my dog?

As I write this, my lunch is being prepared. It consists of a particularly wonderful-smelling pork roast, buttered Brussells sprouts (BUTTER, not oleo,) and my world famous potato salad which is, of course, all vegetable except for the mayonaise in the dressing which does contain eggs. (Mess with me and I'll chop up some ham and put in it.) I shall eat this repast with absolutely no feelings of guilt.

[American]

So with this "I don't care" mind-set, any two things you don't care about are ethically equal. I don't care that I farted, therefore it's a holocaust.


It's time we sent PETA members on a one-way "human shield" vacation (to protect the camels of Iraq... not the meat-eating civilians).

[subgenius]

Wonder if PETA will protest this:
Dog joins human shields in Iraq
By David Blair in Baghdad
(Filed: 15/02/2003)
Possibly the first canine peace activist in the history of international pacifism rolled on his back, waved his legs in the air and panted happily.
Gustavo, a St Bernard, is the only member of the animal kingdom to have joined the ranks of the "human shields in Iraq".
He arrived in Baghdad after an overland journey from Rome at the heels of his owner, Juliana Tucci, an Italian grandmother.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...requestid=29702

I think its outrageous. The poor animal is not there by choice.

PETA has many good points, but they bring them up mostly in absurd ways.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Whodini
PETA has many good points, but they bring them up mostly in absurd ways.
Their only good points are shared by all reasonable animal welfare oriented people, and don't outweigh their unreasonable positions on research and the right to have pets, for example.
They hide their extreme positions behind a smokescreen.
In fact its impossible to find their complete agenda on their website.

[Plutarck]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
There are laws against treating animals they way the victims of the holocaust were treated.

There weren't in Germany. It was quite legal, apparently.

I'd try to point out how morality is quite distinct from morality, and note the Fugative Slave Law, among others...but frankly, judging from the thread as far, I'd do just as well to go argue with my pet brick, Dog.

So I think I'll go do the more enjoyable and likely to be actually productive thing, and clean lint out from under my toe nails.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Plutarck
There weren't in Germany. It was quite legal, apparently.

I'd try to point out how morality is quite distinct from morality, and note the Fugative Slave Law, among others...but frankly, judging from the thread as far, I'd do just as well to go argue with my pet brick, Dog.

So I think I'll go do the more enjoyable and likely to be actually productive thing, and clean lint out from under my toe nails. Ah, but there are laws here and now that protect animals more than there have been laws to protect humans in the past.

It is demonstrable that our society is interested in the well being of animals. We just are not prepared to stop using animals since there is no rational reason to stop.

Now I have to go eat lunch. I wasn't hungry but Smalso has made me thus. Damn I whish I had some potato(e) salad.

The "e" is for Dan Quale fans.

[Plutarck]

Originally posted by RandFan
Ah, but there are laws here and now that protect animals more than there have been laws to protect humans in the past.

Yes, and during, or at a bit before or after, the Fugitive Slave Law, it might be argued that American Slaves were some of the most well-off slaves in the entire world. It is kind of like the "honest advertising" line for New York in an old movie, "New York: We had 300 fewer murders last year."

Making something less bad does not make it good.

It is demonstrable that our society is interested in the well being of animals. We just are not prepared to stop using animals since there is no rational reason to stop.

Interested, yes - just not very much...then again, to stick to be more exactingly precise, it could simply be out of a combination ignorance (people are largely unaware of just what happens to produce a given steak), and a feeling of hopelessness/lack of control - after all, if you don't want to eat meat, just consider how difficult that would be for the majority of people; I certainly have. To do so I must almost entirely resort to buying higher priced products, which are more limited in variety, from a limited variety of places, and have next to zero choice of pre-prepared food from the majority of outlets in the vast majority of areas - from my experience, anyway. Thus, while many may think not killing/torturing/consuming animals to be of some utility, it is not of sufficient marginal utility in various ways, or one is simply unaware of the situation.

As to there being no rational basis for not eating meat, I would of course disagree, in the same way that there is/was a rational basis for abolishing slavery. The problem there, and I would argue here, is a moral system based upon obsolete concepts - there, that any of various slave classes were not valid moral agents due to a variety of reasons (racism being the most recent), to the present case of "specism", where what is and is not a valid moral agent is sorted out by biological taxonomy, which is only the slightest bit less arbitrary and absurd.

Cutting things a bit short, I would argue that empathy, pain, and suffering are most intimately related to a more rational and useful morality...but that is slightly beside the point.


Oh, and finally, fur is of course still fully legal for uses of nothing more than fashion, and not for a reason such as "illegalizing it would make it worse" (hah, as if that ever happens). From what I am aware, similar such things are also not much regulated either, and still a wide-variety of outright grueling and senseless torture is still entirely permitted.

PETA does/did so much better when it actually focused on such things...but then, I suspect it has been taken over by very different interests, having less to do with animals and suffering than to do with their own images, careers, and fame/ego-centered utility seeking...oh, and fools who don't know **** about economics or persuasion.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Plutarck
Yes, and during, or at a bit before or after, the Fugitive Slave Law, it might be argued that American Slaves were some of the most well-off slaves in the entire world. It is kind of like the "honest advertising" line for New York in an old movie, "New York: We had 300 fewer murders last year."

Making something less bad does not make it good.

What do you mean by "less bad?"

There is no rational reason or demonstrative evidence that if we conceded to the wishes of PETA that we would eliminate animal suffering or decrease it in any significant way. Statistically almost all animals in the wild are killed and eaten by predators or die from the elements.

Nearly all animals are killed and eaten shortly after they are born. Domesticated animals statistically live longer and better lives. That is a fact.

The only real "bad" is that humans have the nerve to domesticate and use animals. So we as a society enforce laws to mitigate animal suffering and your response is "less bad doesn't make it good". My answer, no one is trying to turn bad into good. We are just trying to balance the desires of many in society to reduce animal suffering with the desire of others to use animals for food, clothing, research and in some cases exploitation.

You can choose to equate animals with human bondage and human suffering but it doesn't wash. There will always be animals in the wild that cruelly exploit other animals for there own selfish desires. You have no plans to end this because it makes no sense. Nature requires a food chain. Coyotes must eat baby rabbits and Papa lions must snack on their cubs. Mamas kill babies, mamas kill papas and every animal does what ever it can to survive.

I cannot justify the actions of humans because of what animals do in the wild. I can note however that domesticated animals statistically have much longer life spans, less disease and rarely have to worry about predators.

If you are truly worried about the suffering of animals then you should see what you can do to protect baby ducks born in the wild. Most are eaten by wicked, evil predators.

Interested, yes - just not very much...then again, to stick to be more exactingly precise, it could simply be out of a combination ignorance (people are largely unaware of just what happens to produce a given steak),... I grew up on a farm and I can tell you that almost all of the cows live more than a year. Almost all ruminants in the wild are killed shortly after they are born. When cows get sick they are treated by vets. They spend much of their time lazily grazing and not worried about predators.

Watch Zebras of the night sometime on Discover channel. It is hosted by Brian Denehey. Zebras spend almost every waking second alternately trying to find food, and running from Lions, Hyenas, Crocs (yes crocs), etc.

...and a feeling of hopelessness/lack of control - I couldn't disagree more. Here in California some ass reached into a woman's car and pulled her dog out and threw it into the street where it was run over. There was a huge outcry. They guy is in prison now. There simply is no rational reason to stop eating animals or using animal products. It wont significantly change the suffering of animals and they provide good quality food.

...after all, if you don't want to eat meat, just consider how difficult that would be for the majority of people; I certainly have. To do so I must almost entirely resort to buying higher priced products, which are more limited in variety, from a limited variety of places, and have next to zero choice of pre-prepared food from the majority of outlets in the vast majority of areas - from my experience, anyway. Thus, while many may think not killing/torturing/consuming animals to be of some utility, it is not of sufficient marginal utility in various ways, or one is simply unaware of the situation. I don't really understand what it is that you are getting to.

Most people don't want animals to suffer needlessly. Being raised on a farm and then slaughtered to provide sustenance for humans is not "suffering needlessly". So most people do not care.

As to there being no rational basis for not eating meat, I would of course disagree, in the same way that there is/was a rational basis for abolishing slavery. Well by all means disagree. But it simply does not wash. We simply do not give animals the same rights as humans. If we did we would have to stop foxes from eating baby birds. Animal rights activists do not want to give animals the same rights as humans. It would simply be impractical. How can we protect mule deer from mountain lions. In other words non human animals are not born with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In fact they are born with an almost iron clad guarantee that they will be killed and eaten by a predator. That is if they are lucky enough not to die from the elements before a predator can get to them.

No, the only rights animal rights activist want to give animals is the right to die of unnatural causes in the wild. Sorry but that fact does little for me and it does little for other people to. Most people get this fact and know that domestic or wild animals are killed. Simple fact, nothing is going to stop it. If you feel better that the wolf kills Bambi then by all means don't eat meat. But most people understand the role of animals in the world and there is no rational reason not to eat animals.

The problem there, and I would argue here, is a moral system based upon obsolete concepts - there, that any of various slave classes were not valid moral agents due to a variety of reasons (racism being the most recent), to the present case of "specism", where what is and is not a valid moral agent is sorted out by biological taxonomy, which is only the slightest bit less arbitrary and absurd. When slavery ended in the United States it was a significant step towards improving the lives of Blacks. It wasn't any where enough to solving the problems but an important step non the less.

If you could show that the lot of animals could be improved if humans were removed from the equation then I could accept the analogy of slaves. This is not the case. We cannot alter the fact that animals are born to a fate that we simply cannot change. It is impossible. We can only remove man from the equation.

And I honestly believe that domesticated animals live a far better life than wild ones. Wild and natural life is beautiful but it is misleading also. Animals in the wild spend almost all of their time trying to survive.

Domesticated animals spend most of their time eating and hanging out.

Now, would I work to stop slavery if the situation looked hopeless? Yes, I hope so. Why, call me crazy but I think humans are different.

Cutting things a bit short, I would argue that empathy, pain, and suffering are most intimately related to a more rational and useful morality...but that is slightly beside the point. Today I watched a show on the discovery channel about grizzly bears. On the show was an orphaned cub that was expected to die. I felt for it. I wondered why they couldn't intervene and save the bear. Others have intervened and saved orphaned bears. Why couldn't this man who was passionate about saving endangered bears (so passionate that he refused to say where he studied the bears for fear of alerting poachers) save this one cub?

Oh, and finally, fur is of course still fully legal for uses of nothing more than fashion, I don't have a problem with that fact alone. I would like to see changes in the way that they are killed but I'm not against fur in principle.

PETA does/did so much better when it actually focused on such things...but then, I suspect it has been taken over by very different interests, having less to do with animals and suffering than to do with their own images, careers, and fame/ego-centered utility seeking...oh, and fools who don't know **** about economics or persuasion. I would support PETA if there mission was to reduce the suffering of animals. I have heard anecdotal stories of how people have asked PETA to help in certain cases but they refused because they were not high profile or something. I don't know if such cases are the rule or exceptions or simply rumor. I tend to think they are the rule.

I respect your opinion Plutarck but I have spent a life considering this question. I have slaughtered animals for food and profit including chickens and rabbits. I find nothing at all immoral or wrong with using animals as food.

I would never hunt just for sport and I support honest efforts to reduce needless suffering of animals.

RandFan.

[subgenius]

"I have slaughtered animals for food and profit including chickens and rabbits. I find nothing at all immoral or wrong with using animals as food.

I would never hunt just for sport and I support honest efforts to reduce needless suffering of animals.

RandFan."
Just wanted to respect an honest opinion.
Animal welfare vs. animal rights.

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by Plutarck

Interested, yes - just not very much...then again, to stick to be more exactingly precise, it could simply be out of a combination ignorance (people are largely unaware of just what happens to produce a given steak)

I am aware of what happens to produce a steak. The meat I usually buy is from cattle that spend their entire lives roaming in a large proprety, feeding and sleeping. I avoid buying other sort of meat, because I care about the welfare of animals

and a feeling of hopelessness/lack of control

No, I have all the control I need. It's in my wallet. If I don't want to buy meat from a mean, nasty, cruel producer, I won't

- after all, if you don't want to eat meat, just consider how difficult that would be for the majority of people; I certainly have.

You're missing a point here. The vast majority of prople want to eat meat. We are omnivorous, and our digestive sistem is not that well designed for handling vegetables.
Although we can (more or less) live healthy lives only on vegetables, the craving for meat is natural, and I for one need to appease it often.

As to there being no rational basis for not eating meat, I would of course disagree, in the same way that there is/was a rational basis for abolishing slavery.

Apples and oranges. Look at yourself in the mirror. Your eyes are in the front of your face, your teeth are adapted to shread meat. You are a predator man, we all are. Thats why we enjoy chasing things, physical confrontation, and a nice juicy steak... Live with it

to the present case of "specism", where what is and is not a valid moral agent is sorted out by biological taxonomy, which is only the slightest bit less arbitrary and absurd.

And thats why you eat vegetables.. What about their right to live? How about all the wildlife that perishes when we increase the size of our cultured lands?

Cutting things a bit short, I would argue that empathy, pain, and suffering are most intimately related to a more rational and useful morality...but that is slightly beside the point.

I agree with you, and believe that to be the reason to be an informed consumer, in order to minimize the suffering of animals, and improve their wellbeing. However, I still think they should be eaten. Afterall, it's the only reason why their species exist in the first place.

Oh, and finally, fur is of course still fully legal for uses of nothing more than fashion, and not for a reason such as "illegalizing it would make it worse" (hah, as if that ever happens). From what I am aware, similar such things are also not much regulated either, and still a wide-variety of outright grueling and senseless torture is still entirely permitted.

In a sense, we agree here.

PETA does/did so much better when it actually focused on such things...but then, I suspect it has been taken over by very different interests, having less to do with animals and suffering than to do with their own images, careers, and fame/ego-centered utility seeking...oh, and fools who don't know **** about economics or persuasion.

For what I've read, PETA doesn't know much of anything. Only an idiot who knows nothing of animals would think an average deer lives a happier life than an average cow

[Megalodon]

RandFan

Nice post.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Plutarck:
There weren't in Germany. It was quite legal, apparently.

You missed my use of the present tense. The PETA comparison of slaughter of livestock to the slaughter of millions of human beings exaggerates one situation and belittles the other.

Originally posted by Randfan:
I grew up on a farm and I can tell you that almost all of the cows live more than a year.

Most cows live until the end of their reproductive years, which can be anything from 10 to 20 years. Even cattle raised for slaughter have a lifespan of around 30 months.

[Drooper]

Also there is the rather important point.

The cows etc. in question owe their very exisitance to their eventual slaughter.

That was not the same fact for the European Jewish community in the 1930s/40s.

The simple fact is that beyond the infliction of pain and gross neglect, any concept we have of animal welfare is predicated on anthropomorphic feelings. That is why these sorts of people always say something like "well, how would you like it?" or "imagine if they treated people that way", or in this rather gross example on which this thread is based.

[Smalso]

I don't mean to seem dense, but what is the validity of the comparison of the killing of animals with the enslavement of human beings or the systematic attempts at extermination of an ethnic group? Can the euthanizing of dogs and cats at the animal shelter be compared to the Nazi policies toward the Jews? Sorry. I just don't get it.