Peta and Animal Rights

Remove all ads!

Just out of curiosity, LKD, why is it that you call every woman you disapprove of or dislike a "whore"?

 

Gaear, you have a very good point -- honesty is preferable to lying like a cheap rug.

Splunge, because we can't say <female dog> on these boards, and in so many cases it adequately sums up the personality of the women I've met who I dislike -- those who fake passion and love but really have something much colder in their hearts -- sometimes $$, sometimes security, sometimes just the desire for control over another human being.

 

LKD, that's a stupid question in a beer commercial ... let alone in real life.

 

It proved to me something that I suspected -- namely, that she was too stupid to differentiate between the value of a human life and that of a cat. Stupid or not, it helped me dodge a bullet.

It also gave me one of the criteria for serious relationships that I have tried (not without some failures) to follow, which is as follows: If she has a cat, any long term deal is OFF!

 

Chandos, I see I missed posts #19 and #21 somehow, but they still don't change anything I said.

When asked about this Mike Tyson case, PETA claims: "It is inherently cruel. The birds often end up lost in storms, being injured, or just becoming so exhausted that they're unable to fly." I have a few questions about that. Namely, why does pigeon racing make these birds more vulnerable to these things than normal wild birds? Wild pigeons have to deal with more storms than racing pigeons, I'm sure. And more chances of injury, especially with predators out there. And where does this risk of 'exhaustion' come from? The birds typically used here are a special breed of homing pigeon. Homing pigeons are the same thing as carrier pigeons, which have carried messages over 1,000 miles. I doubt most races top that kind of distance.

In short, this isn't like dog fighting or anything.

 

LKD, I'm sorry, but this is ****ing ridiculous. PETA -- as an organization -- protects the rights of animals. That is what PETA does, but members of PETA are more than "just" members of PETA. You have brought up nothing that would indicate that they value the rights of animals more than humans. It's members, vegans, typically participate in human rights causes as well. As a point of fact, I am personally involved in both animal and human rights groups (just not PETA) and I see the same people at both groups. Let me borrow your logic for a moment to demonstrate just how silly if not outright prejudiced this comparison is:

In a world of extensive human suffering, the "lunatic losers" of the LDS church are spending their time, effort and millions upon millions of dollars opposing gay marriage in California? This clearly shows what their priorities are. Mormons think gay marriage -- an institution they are not required to accept or recognize and, thanks to that pesky constitutional separation of church and state they are trying so hard to erode, an institution that they will never be required to accept or recognize -- is more important than child slavery, sweatshops, the sex trade, or even the genocide in Darfur.

I don't believe that for a second, but that appears to be what you are saying about PETA. Let me ask you something. If I actually thought that, what would you think of me? Would it be anything good? Think about that good and hard, because that's what I'm thinking of you right now.

 

I didn't say you have to agree with Drew, only that he made better points about PETA than you did, in my opinion. Not only that, but he knew more about PETA than you, juding by the posts.

I apologize, NOG, I did not read the Tyson link. So I don't really have an opinion either way. I'm sure they do things that many of us do not agree with, but that is beside the point. The point for me is that they don't appear to be the criminal, terrorist organization that their opponents make them out to be.

 

This is what confuses me. His posts amount to a 'No they don't'. That's no attack on his posting, he stated his position and then, it seems, withdrew when he knew he couldn't or didn't want to back it with evidence. I wish more of us did that (and yes, sometimes that includes me). I, however, did back up my posts with evidence. So please, enlighten me, what exactly about his points do you think is 'better'?

 

Ahh, Drew, you are a rhetorical genius!

The fact is that I am used to people seriously making the allegations that you posted in semi-jest. And to be honest, from their liberal humanist perspective I can see (sometimes) where they are coming from.

But what I am saying is that one of the joys of a free society is that we can criticize the priorities of others, and we should. Now sometimes we do so nicely, and sometimes when we're riled up we take the gloves off. Usually I prefer to take the high road, but in cases like this I sometimes lose it.

By "cases like this" I mean the rights groups like PETA -- they aggravate me not only because they have what I believe to be skewed priorities, but because I find them more smug, self-righteous, and judgemental than any religious group out there. Yet those who oppose religion on those grounds seem deathly quiet when it comes to these sorts.

PETA especially gets under my skin. As you yourself said, you are not a member. I find their techniques and causes to be truly obnoxious. I think they are a different breed than the moderates you describe. Other "different breed" groups include oil sands activists that hit politicians with pies and other such folks. They are the ones who get under my skin and bring out the truly hostile bastard in me.

 

Really, that's not the case, clearly; it's just your opinionated rhetoric at this point that in Drew's 4 posts, you keep claiming he only said, "no, they don't." And I will repeat myself again, that's your own opinion and you are entitled to it. I really can't help you with your confusion, because your confusion is self-inflected. I think it is equally confusing that you fail to give Drew any credit for his very good counterpoints and just keep repeating, he only said, "No they don't." But I'm not going to trouble myself beyond telling you respectfully that you can have your own opinion, but that's all it is. If you want to continue in just the "no, he didn't" mode, you will just have to pay me. Your five minutes are up.

 

You are quite wrong. PETA's causes are no different than my own. It is their methods that differ. If PETA's "priorities" are out of whack, then so are mine -- and when you accuse them of valuing animals more than people, you accuse me. I'm disappointed to see that you are still unable to recognize just how clouded your vision is where animal rights activism is concerned.

No, I most assuredly did not do this. You initially argued that PETA funded a terrorist organization. I brought out facts that conclusively proved that they most assuredly never did. You wisely backed away from that conclusion. You then insisted that the NAELFPO materially supported ELF. I again brought up facts that showed this was not the case. You then insisted that rather than materially support the ELF, the NAELFPO merely recruited for them. I brought up facts that showed that this wasn't the case either.

You only partially conceded my point, though, refusing to back down from your statement that the NAELFPO "ideologically if not directly" recruited on behalf of the ELF. The problem I had and still have with that statement is that the NAELFPO does not recruit people -- period. I proved that in my response to you, yet you still refused to expunge the "if not directly" caveat from your assertion. Since I have better things to do that waste my time repeating myself for people who aren't paying attention, I chose to stop wasting my time.

As to whether or not the NAELFPO "ideologically recruits" for the ELF -- whatever that means -- I have no interest whatsoever in arguing that point. It is clear that the NAELFPO sees ELF activities as good and noble -- I conceded as much before you brought the matter up -- and it is also clear that they want their readers to see things that way, too. If you want to call that "ideological recruitment," knock yourself out. It changes nothing.

All of this leaves out another interesting point. PETA's 2001 donation wasn't a blanket donation. It was an earmarked donation. According to PETA, the money was actually used to send two people to Washington to testify at a congressional hearing on behalf of an ELF spokesman. Congress investigated, but no charges were made. In fact, PETA still enjoys their tax-exempt status even today. Their story appears to have checked out.

 

Let me put it another way, Drew -- I am not specifically attacking you, and if you feel that way and are taking it personally I am saddened.

But on these boards people frequently express their disagreement with particular viewpoints. I happen to be strongly opposed to the cause of animal rights as exemplified by PETA, Greenpeace, and other such entities. I understand that means that I am diametrically opposed to your viewpoint on this matter. That's no different than joaqin's comments about religion -- he's never hesitated to call people who oppose his views naive, foolish, or whatever. I find myself in his position now, oddly enough. But disagreements can still occur, and while I may have offended you, such is not my intent. yet my hostility to PETA-esque material remains undimmed, and I reserve the right to express it forcefully.

 

Chandos, my point is that Drew's only specific claim countering mine was concerning PETA's funding of ELF. For the rest, he either said nothing at all, or only presented his own personal claims that I was wrong, without any evidence backing it up.

Drew, I argued that PETA funds terrorists and I provided several examples. These are legal examples, but examples nonetheless. I'm not trying to convict them of a crime, just demonstrate that they support extreme activities. One was the funding of ELF. You pointed out that they actually funded NAELFPO, which claims to be separate from ELF. Personally, I doubt that, I'm guessing that many members of NAELFPO are also either members or financial backers of ELF, but that's just a personal suspicion. Beyond that, I claimed that NAELFPO provided ELF with aid. I consider the dedicated press to be aid, if legal aid, much like providing legal defense funds. I also pointed out that NAELFPO promotes ELF ideology and, I'm betting, if someone contacted NAELFPO and wanted to 'get involved', they would do more than say, 'Good luck with that.' Again, that's just my suspicion, I can't prove anything, but I think it a reasonable one.

LKD, I agree that the most extreme of these groups are much the same as the most extreme religious groups, those that argue that everyone must live by their holy interpretation of their holy word! Or else!! Here, the 'holy interpretation of the holy word' is animal rights, but all the logic, reasoning, and methods are very similar. And yes, the atheists that object to religion based on fear, threats, and indoctrination should also object to this on the same grounds. I don't, however, expect them to fight a two-front war. I fully understand that they may want to focus solely on religion.

 

I just can't read that post without thinking of "The Santa Clause" ... we're elves with attitude.

 

LKD, that was a fun attempt at turning around my rhetorical device, but I spent quite a bit of time and effort qualifying my statement and showing exactly how your assertion that PETA members value animals more than people is also an assertion that anyone who shares their values (like me) also cares more for animals than people. You also miss that I'm taking issue not with your hostility to PETA, but to the single specific assertion that members of PETA value animals more than they value people. Be hostile to PETA if that is what you wish. Hostility to PETA is not hostility to me, and for that matter I wouldn't be terribly concerned if you were directly hostile to me. I'm not going to take issue with hostility.

What I take issue with is your continued assertion that animal rights activists care more for animals than they do for people. It just isn't true. If you said that PETA was bad, that they did bad things, or even that they were "bad people," that would be one thing. Those are subjective opinions and matters of opinion that I'd have no interest in arguing. I'm not married to PETA and don't really care one way or the other what you or anyone else for that matter thinks about them.

My dander was only raised by your specific assertion that PETA, as a group, values animals more than they value people. You assume motivation here -- that is what I take issue with. Just as you would rightly take offense if I were to make blanket statements about what motivates members of the LDS church, you would also rightly view my assumptions about their motivations as an assumption about your own -- and for good reason, since that is exactly what they'd be.

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

NOG, I deal with facts. I don't deal with suspicion, and I don't deal with guilt by association. If you want me to believe that PETA supports terrorism, I'm going to need actual, factual examples of PETA supporting terrorism. That PETA has donated to the legal defense of an ALF member or two and once donated $1500 bucks to send a representative to Washington to testify on behalf of the ELF are not arguable points. Pointing these things out is not where you've gone wrong, and I've provided no resistance of any kind on either point, nor have I really come to PETA's defense on either count.

When I initially stepped in, it was to solely to clear up the facts. You would do well to notice that I was defending you to some degree in my initial post, suggesting that both you and Chandos needed to moderate your positions somewhat. I did also take issue with your assertions that these actions were equivalent to supporting terrorism and especially, as you initially asserted, that PETA is actively involved in terrorist activity, but that was a later post, and I only involved myself again after it became clear that this thread was rapidly devolving into a big argument about "what Drew said".

You have yet to provide any evidence of PETA actually supporting terrorism. You haven't even been able to prove that PETA, as a group*, even approves of such measures. Even if you were able to somehow prove that they did, you'd still have another challenge ahead of you, since approval and support are most assuredly not the same thing.

* Individuals members are naturally another story entirely, and should naturally be looked at ...individually.

 

Drew, do I need to bring up PETA's connection to the Michigan State University arson again? Now, sure, there's no evidence that PETA, as an organizational whole, officially advocated, approved of, aided, or benefitted from it, there is evidence that both co-founders and several members of it's upper staff knew about it before hand and benefitted from it. Maybe this will do for you.

So, basically, my question is just how much of PETA needs to be involved for it to be attributed to PETA as a whole? If the entire official, paid staff and all the largest contributer know about something, but they keep the bottom-level members in the dark, does that mean PETA didn't know about it? What if it's only the official paid staff that are involved, and not any funders? What if it's all the upper staff and decision makers, but the secretaries don't know? Personally, I'm ready to attribute guilt when both founders and all the highest level employees are involved, whether lower level members are or not. After all, we blame the US government for what it's leaders did, even when the IRS collections agent and the American citizens knew nothing about it.

 

Drew - Well, that was my point. I did not know much about PETA until I started looking at the research. As I commented, I now see that they are more victims of corporate smear, than they are a "radical" group. I've seen no evidence that they are a criminal, terrorist group, or even that extreme, except that they are strong supporters of animal rights. I think some of it is a bit over the top, but I can see where they are coming from on their singular issue.

Again that's your own opinion and you can have all the fun with it you want. I understand that you are trying to save face, but you are really getting a bit extreme yourself in this instance. Anyone can go back and look at the posts and see, clearly, that there was more to the exchange than just that. As I said, your five minutes are up. At this point, you don't seem to have a point, or even a consistent position on the real topic of this thread any longer, at least that I can see.

 

If the link you provided really meets your evidentiary standards, you'll probably find this link informative as well. As I said before, NOG, I don't deal in guilt by association smears.

 

Since we have a PETA thread I can post this here:

I thought that was nice of them. And the more I read about them, the more I like what they are doing.

Maybe she should have someone else write her emails.

 

Ahh, the octomom. Nice offer from PETA there -- it certainly beats the porn one. I wonder if she'll take the porn job?