Peta and Animal Rights

Well, if a pregnant teenager with an STD has a boyfriend named Joe who works for PETA, then it's possible that Joe might not want his afore-mentioned girlfriend to own a dog because she could give the dog an STD.

Sheesh. Sometimes you have to point out the most ridiculously obvious things to people.

 

... She.. gives her dog... STDs? Are we going to bring the bestiality discussion in here, too?

 

Well, that is kind of how we got here. First you compared homosexuality to beastiality, and then I asked if you thought pre-marital sex was also an apt comparison, which got us into teen pregnancies and... well, you know the rest...

 

So the girfriend having sex with the dog ... is that animal cruelty or an animal right?

 

That all depends on if you look at it from a deterministic or random chance point of view. In other words, evolution vs. creationism.

 

What I think is that different groups have different opinions, agendas, and tactics. Now as long as everyone follows the bounds of the law in their tactics, one of the supposed strengths of a democracy is that it can flex sufficiently to allow all of these perspectives to exist and express themselves in the public arena -- the marketplace of ideas, as it were (who coined that phrase?)

So, for example, you have PETA claiming that animal research for the purpose of pharmaceutical development is detrimental to society. Most people think that's BS. The law does not support them, yet they are free to legally picket such institutions. They say that the fur industry is bad for society and spend donation money on stupid ad campaigns, even though furs are legal. As long as their actions are legal, no prob.

Others believe that extra-marital sex is harmful to society. They too can advocate that view as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others. No lawbreaking allowed. Doesn't mean that the rest of society has to listen to them or agree with them, but they still have the right to legally advocate their position. They can even lobby for laws.

Others believe that drugs are harmful to society. They have the right to promulgate that opinion. Others who believe that drug prohibition is harmful to society also exist, and this is where it gets sticky, because while they have the right to advocate for a change to current laws, their heartfelt belief does not give them the right to ignore laws already in place -- if they do, they should be prepared for the full weight of the legal system to fall upon them.

Some views meet with more societal approval then others. I take a dim view of most rights activists, and an especially dim view of PETA, yet I do not think they should be muzzled by the government (though I advocate they be ignored by the population in general). However, if it can be proved that a particular group is supporting the illegal acts of others, or is engaging in such acts themselves, they need to be dealt with -- severely -- by the law.

Most of my posts regarding PETA and other animal rights groups seek to do two things:

1: Display how wild and crazy / stupid their positions are, and
2: Display when their tactics have, IMHO, crossed the line into criminal behaviour.

 

Depends if the dog enjoyed it or faked it.

 

I disagree. I think is it OK to place certain age restrictions on sex between two consenting people, but sex is not a "right" that should be granted by the state. You would be making marriage a requirement by law. Maybe the real problem here isn't sex but marriage. Perhaps society would be better off if we deconstructed the institution of marriage entirely. But I'm just speculating on the limits of personal freedom. We are really concerned with "society" here and not the individual.

 

I'm not quite sure what in particular you are disagreeing with, Chandos -- I speak not only in terms of lawmaking (though lawmaking is a part of what I am talking about) but in terms of people expressing their opinions on a topic in public debates.

In the case of pre-marital sex, many groups advocate a return to the ideals of yesteryear, wherein sex outside of the marriage contract was considered a very socially unacceptable thing. People still did it, but I would hazard that they didn't do it as often as they do today, wherein people see promiscuous sex as the norm. In addition, they certainly didn't flaunt it and encourage it as an acceptable and encourageable behaviour pattern.

Other groups call the aforementioned groups a bunch of boring old fuddy-duddies and say that the more humping that goes on in this world, the better, and that sex between any consenting adults should be encouraged as a means of personal fulfillment.

My point is this -- either side can do all the campaigning they want in a democratic society, and they can advocate laws that either strengthen their own position or weaken the position of the opposite side. Insofar as they do their duelling in public discourse and democratic processes, we must, as a society that values free speech, allow them to do so. If one side or the other enacts a law that is reprehensible in some way, the way to fight that law is through court appeals and political lobbying -- NOT through violence, intimidation, or any other illegal acts.

 

Which "yesteryear" would that be? Never Never Land?

I call them perverted despots, who should stop worrying about who is having sex with whom and get out of everyone's bedroom, which is obviously how they get their own perverse kicks. Tyranny starts with very basic rights, like convincing people with whom they should have sex.

No, that's not what you are saying. Basic rights are not legal rights, nor are they legislated by government. Here let me show you what that would look like on paper:

Those rights are not "granted" by the government; they are your unalienable rights as an individual. You have to protect them from the government. And yeah, people can carp and bleat about other people's sex lives all day long for all I care if that's how they get their rocks off. In fact, you know where they send the sex police around to check the girl's panties? Places like Iran and Saudi, and Afgahnistan, which was part of the point in Ragusa's thread. Those who worry about other people's sex lives should go shake hands with those petty despots and tyrants in those places, because they have more in common with those dudes than they do with people who value freedom. Like I said, maybe marriage is the real problem here if that where all this is taking us.

 

I'm with Chandos on this point. About the only thing in that paragraph I agree with is that perhaps it wasn't flaunted as much back then as it is today. I imagine people 100 or 200 years ago were having pre-marital and extra-marital sex just as much as we see it today.

On some of your other points, I do not think most people consider promiscuous sex as the norm, and I know of no one who encourages it as acceptable behavior. Just because society does not criminalize pre-marital and extra-marital sex doesn't mean society encourgaes those things. In fact, it encourages the exact opposite - society as a whole encourages marriage, and fidelity to one's spouse once you get married.

 

Again, I think you're both missing the point. LKD isn't arguing that they're right, just that they have a right to speak. I can advocate a law that says you can only eat mayonase on Tuesdays all I want. It'll never get passed and if it does it'll probably be overturned on appeal, but I can still advocate it all I want. If I start shooting at people who treat the WHoly Mayonase with disregard, I'm going to jail, but just preaching about it is my right as a member of a society that values free speech.

 

Really? You mean we still have a Constitution? I'm glad you are here to tell me that. Trying a bit of misdirection again?

First off, LKD knows that hardly anyone gives a flip what these people say, so his point that they have the right to speak about it is moot. These groups are out there already, and they rattle on about the "culture wars" as the day is long. We all saw Ragusa's thread. Think of it this way, since we are just stating the obvious: It's like the Klan saying that Jewish people, or black people should be deported. They have the right to say it but nobody with half a brain listens to them. I suppose we can say that the Klan can legislate laws that would have black people deported and then we could go through the democratic process of finding out if such a law could pass and if it could stand up in court. And yes, the Klan can stand out in the street and say that stuff all day long, LKD and NOG, but so what?

So I guess within the context of this thread, I take it that you guys mean to say that PETA has the same right to express themselves as the culture wars people? And the reverse is true? I can't think of a reason why people having sex outside of marriage would be a topic in this thread. If all you are saying is that various groups have the right to express themselves, then yeah, they all do. But again...your point would be?

 

I got his point - but, like Chandos, I felt that his point was obvious, and didn't add anything to the topic. I didn't see anyone arguing that you didn't have freedom of speech, or that you couldn't petition the government to change laws, no matter how silly your suggestions may be. Also, he didn't make that point until the last paragraph of a four paragraph post, and I disagreed with just about everything he wrote previous to that. My reply was directed at the everything else part, and not at the part that was obviously true.

 

You seem to be making me into some sort of psychotic despot, which I am not. I know that sex has been around for ages. What I am saying is that if a group advocates that teen sex be curtailed, it is not indicitive that that group "hates freedom" -- there is a case to be made that teen sex and teen pregnancy has societal costs.

What I am trying to say is that in a democracy, we must accept the fact that others will hold positions that directly conflict with that which we hold dear. This is the case with me and PETA. It is (I would hazard)Chandos' case with anyone who suggests more societal intervention in the field of youth sexual activity.

At no time did I ever state that I believe that extra-marital sex should be made illegal. What I do advocate is that if there is a law out there that contradicts your interpretation of the Constitution or your personal moral code, that law should be combatted in the courts. It should not be taken to the streets, as has been done by abortion doctor killers (whom I have repudiated from day 1) or by animal rights activists, who took it upon themselves to destroy the property of others and assault others because of their beliefs. Both are examples of people who take it upon themselves to break the law because they feel their heartfelt opinions make them above the law. Such a mindset must be vigorously combatted in order for a democracy to work. If that puts me in league with the Saudis and Iranians, well, whatever.

 

LKD - There seems to be a whole lot of confusion here and it could be cleared up if posts on both sides were read a little more closely:

First, I commented in my original post that I had no problem with the current age restrictions on premarital sex. It's usually the guy who can go to jail in most cases, and I think they are a little unfair, but I won't fuss too much about the current laws.

Second, Aldeth and I were referring to ANY premarital sex, at any age, which was my point that people would not be able to have sex at all without a permit (marriage license in this instance). That is what we were complaining about.

Third, none of this was directed at you presonally, since I had no idea what your own personal stand on the issue was.

So I guess what you are saying is that the current laws should be changed to include all TEEN premarital sex as being illegal activity. That to me seems a little harsh but I would not consider it despotic. But of course, age 21 will be next target, as usual. Of course, in modern times we now have what seems the "eternal childhood." No one seems responsible for anything because they are still "babies," even at 21 and beyond, in some instances. But personally, I think the current laws we have are just fine.

As far as the issue of teen pregancy, I still believe it is a personal, family matter that the state needs to stay out of for the most part. But if guess if you want to put people in jail for it you can advocate that. But personally I don't think the threat of jail-time for sex will change anything. Except that it will give prison guards, and contractors who build prisons, more job security (as if we don't have enough of them already).

 

I think it added plenty to the topic, especially considering the way other topics have gone. He's advocating a patient, calm, civilized approach to someone you disagree with, only taking action when they break the rules. If everyone behaved this way, I think the world would be a much better place, and I think we all need periodic reminders of it.

Not on these forums, thankfully, but I have heard people argue exactly that, and I'd be surprised if you said you've never heard it argued.

The rest of the post was a review of issues to support his conclusion. At no point did he advocate for any of it, not for making extra-marrital sex illegal, nor for making drugs legal, nor for making animal research illegal. That you disagreed with his perception of history (and I'm not saying he was right, I honesly don't know enough) doesn't change the fact that it was completely ancilliary to his actual post and the topic. Either I was right and you missed the point, or I was wrong and you simply didn't think it worth responding to. If the latter, I appologize. When you said, "I'm with Chandos on this point" as an introduction to your post, I took it to mean a general approval of his post.

 

Not quite -- I would agree that such a legal response would be overboard and counterproductive. What I AM saying is that even if there were people who managed to get such a loopy law passed, the place to challenge them would be in court and in public forums. It would not be right to commit crimes against them. In addition, barring criminal actions, it is also unhealthy to dismiss the arguments of those who disagree with you out of hand -- taking the time to listen to what the other side is actually saying before slagging them is what Western society needs. I find it depressing that my side (right wingers) so often fail to do this. Listening might not always help you find common ground, and you might not believe what they say, but it can't hurt!

I'm not the person who brought teen sex or abortion here -- I'm not sure who did, really. But since it came up, I thought I'd address them in the manner in which I saw them interacting with the whole PETA concept.

 

We agree on that point.

I don't think that the teens would be in revolt or commit crimes against them. I could be wrong, but I just don't see something like that as an issue. I'm sure there would be protests with the older teens, particularly those in college. I take from all your other posts that you would have no problem with teens expressing themselves as long as they were lawful. So their protests and attemps to have such laws overturned would not be a problem for anyone here.

The only problem I see is that older people tend to write-off the opinions of those younger than they are. You are right that the teenage viewpoint would stand the chance of being largley ignored by the older generations, but that is pretty much how it always has been, which is very unfortunate. Adults are generally partonizing towards them and find it difficult to give the younger generation its proper due in my experience.

As I've been saying society, tends to be pretty liberal on the whole, while it is politically just the opposite and somewhat conservative. It's really the religious conservatives who have a problem with other people's sex lives, as we saw in Ragus'a post, which started this debate. Most everyone else doesn't really care.