You assume incorrectly. I’ve never fired a gun in my life, but I was not talking about some random yahoo with a firearm. I was talking about a trained professional, and I’ve seen what they can do. For them, dropping an animal in controlled circumstances is like dynamiting fish in a barrel, and while dropping an animal that’s roaming freely (say a rabid dog in a vacant lot) is more difficult, they can still do it with minimal suffering to the animal.
That’s like an alcohol swab on a condemned man’s arm before you give him the fatal does, don’t you think? (Doing it before you shoot them, I mean.)
As for the cite request, if the GQ thread I linked to isn’t enough for you, then sorry, but I ain’t got time to dig through tons o’ crap for anything better right now. Don’t forget that in general, methods of execution are tested out on animals before humans are ever subjected to them. So if things like lethal injection are decided to be cruel to humans, then the same must be true of animals. (Note, I think that the arguments that lethal injection/guillotining/firing squad are “cruel and painful” are pretty much bunk. I also think that it’s more humane to allow a person to take their own life, than have to suffer for months, being hooked up to machines, which only prolong their suffering.)
No: the point of the sedative is to calm the animal enough that you can administer the shot (whether IV or gun) precisely. As I said, I’ve not heard of an organization that sedates an animal before gunshot; if such an organization exists, I’d want to find out more about their success rate.
It’s absolutely not a sufficient cite for me, since it addresses a different means of causing death (paralytic agent+sedative instead of solely sedative), it addresses death in humans as opposed to dogs and cats, and the experts involved aren’t experts in the field of animal euthanasia.
If you are unwilling to dig through crap for something better, that’s fine; at that point, I’ll dismiss your claim that experts disagree on this subject until you or someone else produces an expert disagreeing on this subject. I mean no insult by dismissing the claim like that; it’s simply an unsupported claim.
Except that PETA does advocate Lawlessness, (Bruce Friedrich, PETA’s “vegan campaign director” and third-in-command, addressing the Animal Rights 2001 convention in Virginia,), Oppression( PETA spokesperson Kathy Guillermo told a radio audience, “I’m against using guide dogs,” and Newkirk has said, "(In) a perfect society, we won’t have a need for (guide dogs) and Murder, link and link (from the first link- “PETA knows no bounds to its support for animal rights terrorists. When Fran Stephanie Trutt, a member of the extremist Friends of Animals, was convicted of attempting to murder Leon Hirsch, president of the U.S. Surgical Company, PETA paid all her legal expenses.”)
Now, since I made no comparisons at all, absolutely none, between PETA and the Nazis ( My mention of Dr. Mengle was strictly as an example of how one could attempt to excuse inexcusable acts using a “nuanced position”. Reread for context), nor did I compare them to the KKK (Dorkness said he supports a terrorist or at best borderline terrorist organization simply because 25% of what they do is “good”, ergo to be consistent I opined that he would have to support the KKK IF they devoted 25% of their resources to “good”. ), what part of my posts is either hyperbole or name calling (beyond calling his Dorkness a lying disingenuous fuck, which he obviously is)? In fact, nobody has yet addressed the moral turpitude that Daniel is displaying, turning a blind eye to very real crimes committed by PETA simply because they do “25% good”, nor given any indication why if one were to compare PETA to another despicable organization like the KKK, that would be in any way inaccurate. Now that I think more about it, the comparison is an apt one after all.
I have addressed every point you have raised, using cites even, I’ll thank you not to run away just because you’re being blown out of the water. You’ve already proven yourself to be a liar, shall we add “intellectual coward” to your resume as well?
I thought I was remembering that correctly, Weirddave. Wasn’t there a PETA-related group that was going around and cutting guide and service dogs’ leashes?
I do. Allow me to address what I’ve seen as his points in a fashion similar to the way he’s made them:
-He rejects nuanced reasoning, demonstrating that because of the attacks on 9/11, he must advocating genocide against everyone in the middle east. Hell, if a middle easterner opened a homeless shelter, he’d be out there with a rifle trying to kill the guy. If he supports the war in Iraq, he must also support the White Power movement.
-There are no degrees of “pretty awful.” Because I consider McDonald’s food to be pretty awful, I must want to see it wiped from the face of the earth, just like I want to see happen to torture of political detainees, which is also pretty awful.
-People are innocent until proven guilty. Unless Weirddave can produce evidence that he does not torture animals, I am an apologist for him for not assuming his guilt in such matters.
-For good measure, he’s a poopyhead and eats boogers.
If I may take the opportunity to add a rebuttal to Metacom in the manner of his posts to me:
-He and his coworkers are similar to Pol Pot and support killing all intellectuals.
-He’s hydroencephalic, due to the syphilis his mother contracted from the neighbor’s dog during her pregnancy with him.
I post this way not because I like to, but do demonstrate that my normal refusal to do so is a choice, not due to lack of capability.
Metacom has got a lot of fucking gall to take me up on my offer to address Weirddave’s points after his contemptible behavior; but I said I would, and I will, given more specifics. But that’s a one-off offer: at this point, I’m revising my offer to this, which I wrongly assumed was implied before:
If anyone with an ounce of civility or a shred of decency finds some specific point that Weirddave has made to be compelling, please tell me politely and specifically which point it may be, and I’ll attempt to address it.
No fewer then three people called you on your previous puerile offer. You respond by insulting myself and Weirddave (which is OK, because this is the pit, after all) and then changing the offer (which is double-plus puerile) and then demanding that people address you politely (which is hypocrisy).
I really don’t think there’s a point in engaging you further on this issue; you seem like a decent enough fellow in other threads, but debating you in animal-related threads is about as intellectually fulfilling as huffing toluene.
No, I believe he rejects your use of nuanced reasoning. Try asking some ex-pat Cubans to be nice to Castro because “about 25% of what he does is pretty fucking awful; about 25% is pretty good; and about 50% is political activism whose value (good or bad) depends on whether you agree with his starting position” and see what happens.
Do you think that about 25% of what PETA does compares to what Castro does?
People are getting way too hung up on the “pretty fucking awful,” comparing it to things which are magnitudes of pretty fucking awful beyond anything PETA does. To the best of my knowledge, the pretty fucking awfulest thing that PETA has done is (depending on your take) a pretty fucking awful ad campaign comparing chickenkilling to the Holocaust, or paying the legal fees for an arsonist. Neither of these acts is illegal; neither of these acts are regarding by our court system as being as “pretty fucking awful” as someone who spits on the sidewalk.
To take something more pretty fucking awful than comparing chickenkilling to the Holocaust: driving drunk is pretty fucking awful. However, if someone drives drunk, I can acknowledge that they also volunteer in a literacy program down at the library, and praise the latter while condemning the former.
That’s nuanced reasoning. Analogizing PETA to the KKK, Castro, or Dr. Mengele is not.
PETA enables eco-terrorism–helping fund their organizations, not just paying legal fees. Not to mention that Ingrid Newkirk is a hypocrite when it comes to using drugs that had been tested on animals. Their acts are legal, yes, but so are the acts of Castro and (at the time) Mengele.
“Hate the sin but love the sinner.” In the case of your hypothetical drunk driver, I’d hope he gets caught before he kills someone.
We’re not analogizing PETA–we’re applying your nuanced reasoning to other parties.
Castro has put lots of people in prison, made conditions bad enough that lots of people have died attempting to escape him. Worst case scenario, what’s the worst result of any action in which PETA was involved?
Once again, this shows a lack of nuance to compare the two. They’re not close, any more than spitting on the sidewalk is “close enough” to spilling PCBs on the side of the road. Comparing PETA to Castro, to borrow a phrase from Jon Stewart, is demeaning to Castro: he’s worked hard to be that much of a tyrant.
Big freakin’ deal! Plenty of people are hypocrites. That means I don’t respect them, not that I compare them to a tyrant. I see things in shades, not in black and white.
There, to borrow an expression from the Greatest American, you go again. Do you believe that Castro’s actions should be legal? That Mengele’s actions should be legal? Conversely, which specific actions has PETA taken that you believe should be illegal? It’s absurd to compare them.
On the contrary, you’re comparing my qualified assessment of PETA with a nonexistent qualified assessment of Mengele. For your analogy to work, PETA and Mengele have to be analogous.
I can’t believe that I’m actually having to argue in defense of taking a nuanced position.
What’s the difference between Ingrid Newkirk and Fidel Castro? Newkirk opposes the entire human race while Castro only opposes ceartain people, except Castro is in a position to do something about it with little fear of repercussion.
“If we really believe that animals have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands, then of course we’re going to be blowing things up and smashing windows. I think it’s a great way to bring animal liberation, considering the level of suffering, the atrocities. I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories and banks that fund them, exploded tomorrow.” - Bruce Friedrich, PETA’s Director of Vegan Outreach
Not at all. Castro’s actions are legal where he is, just as Mengele’s actions were legal where he was, just as PETAs are legal here.
Incorrect. I wasn’t the one who brought up Mengele. Even if I had been, it’s possible to apply the same qualified assessment to other parties without maing an analogy between them. We’re using your supposed 25/25/50, not PETA itself. By the way, those percentages can also be applied to the tobacco industry.
Then you shouldn’t have taken such a position. John Kerry tried nuanced reasoning and look where it got him.
That last sentence is kind of a big difference. Someone that fantasizes about killing his political enemies is different from someone who kills his political enemies. Are you suggesting that you’d condemn the former and the latter equally?
Could you answer the questions I asked? You quoted them.
So let me hear your theory of judgments. Explain to me: if someone jaywalks, should one then not defend that person against incorrect charges of murder? Let me hear your theory of defending organizations or people against charges, and explain whether and how the truth of those charges might enter into the picture.
Oh, for the love of Christ. I RETRACT THAT PREVIOUS STATEMENT! I WAS WRONG! I REPUDIATE IT!
I’ll re-phrase it. About a quarter of what PETA does is pretty fucking tacky, verging into sleazy, but not crossing the line into fucking awful. About a quarter of what they do is good solid work. And about half of what they do is politically controversial, whose goodness or tackiness will depend greatly on your own politics.
Now, if you want to compare them to Kim Jong-Il because old Kim is tacky, go for it; I’ll letcha.
What I think should or should not be legal has no bearing. Their acts are/were legal where said acts are/were committed.
Actually, our opinions aren’t that much different. I’m all for the ethical treatment of animals but I feel PETA’s mission is being hampered by the kooks in charge.
You’re still not getting it. It wasn’t the “pretty fucking awful” but rather your nuanced position on the whole. dave and I have been trying to illustrate that such a position can apply to anyone.
So are you arguing that nuanced reasoning is faulty? Again, explain to me your theory, if you’re rejecting the taking of a nuanced position. I really don’t get what folks are arguing.
