# PETA rehash thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 1, 2005, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peta-rehash-thread/310656 "2005-07-01T06:28:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peta-rehash-thread/310656/41 "2005-07-04T02:52:53Z")
> [@ouryL](#): > > Synthetic insulin is made from genetically altered bacteria. Just so we’re all clear, bacteria are not animals. You need to speak to PETM. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peta-rehash-thread/310656/42 "2005-07-04T04:27:02Z")
> [@Zhao Daoli](#): > > You’re the one assuming PETA has no credibility and it is your burden to prove that. > I agree that one needs to be skeptical when getting information about an organization from their site, but if you’ve got a problem with the way they portray one of their victories, have at it. > Here’s a cite from an anti-PETA author on PETA’s affect on KFC. [Cite.](http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-smith071103.asp) I would accept very very few organizations self-serving claims, PETA or not PETA. And, that effect in your cite is mild- the improvements- if they are improvements at all- are minor. The chickens were’nt being treated inhumanely in the 1st place, and they’ll end up fried in any case. I don’t see any big change. What I do see from that article is PETA using blackmail to force a company into rather dubious gains. And- after a deal was cut- then continuing with their blackmail despite the deal. **Left Hand of Dorkness** - again, your cite shows extremely dubious gains. I don’t see anything which is a ral improvment. Again, a major chain blackmailed into making a few minor and rather dubious “improvements”. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peta-rehash-thread/310656/43 "2005-07-04T04:44:35Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > And, that effect in your cite is mild- the improvements- if they are improvements at all- are minor. The chickens were’nt being treated inhumanely in the 1st place, and they’ll end up fried in any case. I don’t see any big change. The chickens were being treated badly, and the improvements were hardly minor. To quote: > [@Anti-PETA article](#): > > Bachelder pledged to install cameras in all of KFC’s 29 slaughterhouses by the end of next year, with a plan to audit the tapes monthly. KFC also agreed 1) to ensure that its suppliers would add stimulation devices to the perches in the chicken sheds; 2) to move quickly to kill chickens in electric stun baths rather than merely immobilizing them; 3) to implement humane mechanized chicken-gathering systems; and 4) to provide increased space for chicken housing. KFC promised to report back to PETA on a regular basis to verify its compliance. Stimulation devices, humane killing, less pain in the sorting process, and more space. If that doesn’t meet your standard for significant change, what would? > [@DrDeth](#): > > What I do see from that article is PETA using blackmail to force a company into rather dubious gains. And- after a deal was cut- then continuing with their blackmail despite the deal. I don’t think blackmail was the word you were looking for – PETA didn’t get any money out of the deal. If you mean that they pressured KFC and will continue doing so, you are correct. However, they did agree to suspend the campaign for 60 days and not picket the annual shareholder meeting. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peta-rehash-thread/310656/44 "2005-07-04T15:18:56Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > **Left Hand of Dorkness** - again, your cite shows extremely dubious gains. I don’t see anything which is a ral improvment. Again, a major chain blackmailed into making a few minor and rather dubious “improvements”. You don’t see any real gains because you don’t see a problem in the first place; this suggests to me that either you’re hostile toward the concept of animal welfare in the first place, or else you’ve not bothered to look into the conditions against which PETA was fighting. In either case, your opinion on the subject is thereby less relevant to the thread. I submit that: 1. If you’re familiar with the conditions against which PETA was agitating; and 2. If you believe that we have a moral obligation to minimize the suffering of the animals we eat; and 3. If you’re not irrevocably convinced that PETA is evil, and don’t want to be confused with facts; then 4. You’ll conclude that PETA’s work in these areas was positive. As for “blackmail”: are you familiar with the word boycott? If so, is there a reason why the word “blackmail” (which describes the illegal process of threatening to reveal someone’s secrets unless they pay you money) is remotely appropriate to this situation, when the word “boycott” (which describes the often legal process of organizing consumers to refuse to purchase a business’s products until that business makes change in its practices) is not? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![wolfman97](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@wolfman97](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfman97)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peta-rehash-thread/310656/45 "2005-07-04T15:33:39Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Again, please cite PETA protesting shelters that kill animals, or demonizing the heads of those shelters. At worst, I think you’re completely wrong; at best, I think you’re misinterpreting what they were protesting in those cases. I’m familiar, for example, with PETA’s protests against shelters who overcrowd animals, fail to treat injuries, leave animals in dangerous conditions where they can drown slowly, beat animals, allow animals to breed in the shelter, and so forth; but I’ve never ever heard of them protesting shelters that euthanize animals simply because of the euthanasia. > > Daniel The Penn and Teller show included tapes and interviews with PETA protestors doing just that. ---
**Author:** ![wolfman97](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@wolfman97](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfman97)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peta-rehash-thread/310656/46 "2005-07-04T15:38:37Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Uh…of **course** the freezer was to store dead animals. You claim that they kill more dogs themselves than a typical animal shelter; can you give a meaningful cite to this effect? A 2/3 euthanasia rate is rather good for the Southern United States, unfortunately: many shelters have a much higher rate. Overpopulation of dogs and cats in the South is horrifically bad. Let’s set the question of the numbers aside for a moment and just note that 1500 dead dogs each year is a lot of dead dogs. But how do you reconcile their killing ANY of them with their stated philosophy? (Let alone a steady flow of 1,500 or so per year). > [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Second, can you give a cite as to PETA attacking animal shelters “that do the same thing”? I believe you’ll find cites wherein they explicitly condone the euthanasia performed by animal shelters even while calling for an end to the conditions that make it necessary; but I do not believe you’ll find any examples of them condemning shelters for performing euthanasia (except when the method of euthanasia is inhumane, e.g., use of carbon monoxide to euthanize juvenile animals). > > Daniel The Penn and Teller show included interviews with PETA people who were in the streets carrying signs doing just that. They also included an interview with the guy who heads up the Los Angeles animal shelters describing how the PETA people had come to his house and vandalized his car, etc., etc. ---
**Author:** ![wolfman97](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@wolfman97](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfman97)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peta-rehash-thread/310656/47 "2005-07-04T15:42:51Z")
> [@Zhao Daoli](#): > > I think this was covered pretty well in the thread about this, but I’ll just re-cap. There is no evidence that PETA is systemically illegally disposing of euthanized animals. And there is no reason to believe that these animals wouldn’t have been euthanized anyway. A painless death is better than torture. Now there is a good argument for an organization claiming to protect animals. “If I hadn’t killed him, someone else would have.” That’s my justification for eating steak, BTW. ---
**Author:** ![wolfman97](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@wolfman97](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfman97)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peta-rehash-thread/310656/48 "2005-07-04T15:49:36Z")
> [@Zhao Daoli](#): > > So you’re saying that anyone who takes advantage of the fruits of research or labor they morally oppose is hypocritical? If they are taking advantage of it while seeking to deny the same thing to others then certainly. That seems pretty much like the dictionary definition of hypocrisy to me. > [@Zhao Daoli](#): > > Hmmm, do you avoid any company that has its roots in slavery? Only if they advocate continuing it. > [@Zhao Daoli](#): > > Do you avoid any medication that was tested on less-than-informed patients? Probably, because that means that someone probably broke the law and the medicine never made it to the market. > [@Zhao Daoli](#): > > Do you think that people who suffer from syphilis should ignore medical advice because some of that knowledge came from the Tuskeegee experiments? Surely not. What was there that was medically useful that came out of the Tuskegee experiments? Did they result in any new treatments that someone should morally avoid? > [@Zhao Daoli](#): > > Mildred Newkirk had no control over how insulin was developed and now uses synthetic insulin. You may argue that animals had to be used to develop insulin, but that point is certainly as cut and dried as you’d like to make it. More to the point, she wants to stop research that might provide others the same benefit she got. > [@Zhao Daoli](#): > > Furthermore, even if you think that she is hypocritical because she doesn’t allow herself to die because of research she theoretically would have opposed, “theoretically” would have opposed??? My, my. They are funding arsonists to burn down the labs. I think that is more than “theoretically”, and it is a bit more than just a mild objection. Yeah, that is clearly hypocrisy with a capital “H”. > [@Zhao Daoli](#): > > that doesn’t make PETA, as an organization, hypocritical. And it certainly doesn’t make them deserve the ire that they receive from most people. If that is one of their top leaders, then yes, it does make PETA hypocritical – not to even mention the killing of dogs. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peta-rehash-thread/310656/49 "2005-07-04T15:50:51Z")
> [@wolfman97](#): > > Let’s set the question of the numbers aside for a moment and just note that 1500 dead dogs each year is a lot of dead dogs. But how do you reconcile their killing ANY of them with their stated philosophy? (Let alone a steady flow of 1,500 or so per year). This suggests to me you’re discussing a subject you’ve not bothered to educate yourself on, which is frankly quite frustrating. I’ll avoid the temptation to link you to google, where it took me five seconds to pull up information explaining this reconciliation. [Here’s a link to get you started](http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=39). > [@PETA](#): > > Approximately 6 to 8 million animals are handled by animal shelters in the United States each year. Even though some are reclaimed or adopted, nearly 4 million unwanted dogs and cats are left with nowhere to go.(1) Shelters cannot humanely house and support all these animals until their natural deaths—they would be forced to live for years, lonely and stressed, in cramped cages or kennels, and other animals would have to be turned away because there would not be room for them. > > Turning unwanted animals loose to roam the streets is not a humane option. If they don’t starve, freeze, get hit by a car, or die of disease, they may be tormented and possibly killed by cruel juveniles or picked up by dealers who obtain animals to sell to laboratories. > > Good and Bad Solutions > Because of the high number of unwanted companion animals and the lack of good homes, sometimes the most humane thing that a shelter worker can do is give an animal a peaceful release from a world in which dogs and cats are often considered “surplus” and unwanted. PETA, The American Veterinary Medical Association, and The Humane Society of the United States concur that an intravenous injection of sodium pentobarbital administered by a trained professional is the kindest, most compassionate method of euthanizing animals. The American Humane Association considers this to be the only acceptable method of euthanasia for cats and dogs in animal shelters. > [@](#): > > The Penn and Teller show included interviews with PETA people who were in the streets carrying signs doing just that. They also included an interview with the guy who heads up the Los Angeles animal shelters describing how the PETA people had come to his house and vandalized his car, etc., etc. Given the link above, I am skeptical that you’re representing this show accurately, or that Penn and Teller (not famous for their calm, dispassionate, fair-minded look at the facts) were representing the protests accurately. Nevertheless, if you can provide me with links to news stories in which PETA’s protesting of specific locations is specifically discussed, I’ll be happy to evaluate them. PETA does enough really stupid shit that folks can legitimately criticize them for; it’s bizarre and counterproductive to criticize them for stupid shit that they don’t do. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![wolfman97](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@wolfman97](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfman97)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peta-rehash-thread/310656/50 "2005-07-04T15:52:25Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Just so we’re all clear, bacteria are not animals. You need to speak to PETM. > > Daniel The definitions that I find on the web say that “higher” bacteria are certainly animals. They move on their own, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peta-rehash-thread/310656/51 "2005-07-04T15:55:06Z")
> [@wolfman97](#): > > The definitions that I find on the web say that “higher” bacteria are certainly animals. They move on their own, etc. Where are you getting your definitions from? Higher bacteria are animals in the same way that lower mammals are sandstone formations. It’s complete and utter nonsense; all bacteria are monera, a kingdom separate from animals. Really, you need to be doing some better researching, and this time I ain’t gonna help you out. You need to learn a lot about taxonomy. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![wolfman97](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@wolfman97](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfman97)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peta-rehash-thread/310656/52 "2005-07-04T16:16:13Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Where are you getting your definitions from? Higher bacteria are animals in the same way that lower mammals are sandstone formations. It’s complete and utter nonsense; all bacteria are monera, a kingdom separate from animals. Really, you need to be doing some better researching, and this time I ain’t gonna help you out. You need to learn a lot about taxonomy. > > Daniel Well, I admit that I am no expert on bacteria, but whether the definitions I found are correct or not, that is really a comparatively small side issue. The thread is about PETA and their apparent hypocrisy. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peta-rehash-thread/310656/53 "2005-07-04T16:20:40Z")
> [@wolfman97](#): > > Well, I admit that I am no expert on bacteria, but whether the definitions I found are correct or not, that is really a comparatively small side issue. The thread is about PETA and their apparent hypocrisy. Right, but the evidence for their hypocrisy keeps falling through; this is just another example. If insulin is derived from bacteria these days, then it is not hypocritical to use insulin unless bacteria are animals. Bacteria are not animals. Same thing with shelters. If PETA condones euthanasia at shelters, then it is not hypocritical for them to practice euthanasia at their shelter. Folks are doing a terrible job producing evidence that they’ve protested euthanasia at other shelters in relevantly similar circumstances (if they protest carbon monoxide euthanasia, naturally, that’s a whole nother game). When your argument is built on a lot of tiny untrue facts, the whole edifice collapses. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peta-rehash-thread/310656/54 "2005-07-04T16:24:39Z")
> [@wolfman97](#): > > If they are taking advantage of it while seeking to deny the same thing to others then certainly. That seems pretty much like the dictionary definition of hypocrisy to me. You’ve managed to parse my argument into enough little sections that you missed the bigger picture. You’re arguing that if she’s taking advantage of something going on now that she opposes then she is hypocritical. No one is disagreeing. I’m saying she doesn’t benefit from contemporary animal research. And she doesn’t seek to deny synthetic insulin to anyone. Again, you can make the argument that synthetic insulin could not have been invented but for animal research, but you’re going to have to back that up with some good citations. Believe it or not, the people that oppose medical research on animals are not all whackos. * * * Also, about the bacteria. Even if some taxonomies put “higher-order” bacteria in the animal kingdom, it doesn’t really mean anything. PETA isn’t necessarily defending rights for the biological kingdom of animals, though I imagine there might be some arguments over the humane treatment of sea sponges, etc. Rather, they are defending rights for those animals that have a central nervous system, which bacteria certainly do not. ---
**Author:** ![wolfman97](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@wolfman97](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfman97)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peta-rehash-thread/310656/55 "2005-07-04T16:31:43Z")
> [@Zhao Daoli](#): > > You’ve managed to parse my argument into enough little sections that you missed the bigger picture. You’re arguing that if she’s taking advantage of something going on now that she opposes then she is hypocritical. No one is disagreeing. I’m saying she doesn’t benefit from contemporary animal research. And she doesn’t seek to deny synthetic insulin to anyone. She seeks to deny others the same benefits of animal research that she got. > [@Zhao Daoli](#): > > Again, you can make the argument that synthetic insulin could not have been invented but for animal research, but you’re going to have to back that up with some good citations. Believe it or not, the people that oppose medical research on animals are not all whackos. Did I make that argument? I don’t think I did. Do you know any good way of deriving such medicines without doing animal testing? (If you were going to say “computer testing” then that would be a mistake.) > [@Zhao Daoli](#): > > Also, about the bacteria. Even if some taxonomies put “higher-order” bacteria in the animal kingdom, it doesn’t really mean anything. PETA isn’t necessarily defending rights for the biological kingdom of animals, though I imagine there might be some arguments over the humane treatment of sea sponges, etc. Rather, they are defending rights for those animals that have a central nervous system, which bacteria certainly do not. OK, I get it. It should be “People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals With a Central Nervous System” PETAWCNS. That is, cockroaches and bacteria would not qualify, but grasshoppers would. Is that the idea? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peta-rehash-thread/310656/56 "2005-07-04T16:35:01Z")
> [@wolfman97](#): > > She seeks to deny others the same benefits of animal research that she got. Now you’re just willfully ignoring my point. > [@wolfman97](#): > > OK, I get it. It should be “People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals With a Central Nervous System” PETAWCNS. That is, cockroaches and bacteria would not qualify, but grasshoppers would. Is that the idea? Yes, that is the idea. You weren’t aware that animal rights stem from their ability to feel pain and suffering? ---
**Author:** ![wolfman97](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@wolfman97](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfman97)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peta-rehash-thread/310656/57 "2005-07-04T17:06:54Z")
> [@Zhao Daoli](#): > > Now you’re just willfully ignoring my point. No, I just think that anyone who got benefits from past animal research and now seeks to deny potential benefits to others in the future is a hypocrite, regardless of the timing of when the research happened. > [@Zhao Daoli](#): > > Yes, that is the idea. You weren’t aware that animal rights stem from their ability to feel pain and suffering? So are they doing anything to protect the feelings of grasshoppers and other similar insects? Maybe they are campaigning against spreading the farms with insecticide or something that I missed? ---
**Author:** ![Unregistered\_Bull](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3da27b/32.png) [@Unregistered\_Bull](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unregistered_Bull)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peta-rehash-thread/310656/58 "2005-07-04T17:26:01Z")
> [@Zhao Daoli](#): > > Yes, that is the idea. You weren’t aware that animal rights stem from their ability to feel pain and suffering? I thought that it stemmed from mental defectives with bizarre fetishes for animals and a self-loathing of mankind. I have never seen any defence of the insanity of the notion of animal rights that has changed my mind yet. I went to a Super Wal-Mart yesterday. There had to be a couple of herds of cattle worth of meat being sold. I bet that the number of folks who gave any thought to the ‘pain and suffering’ of the cattle that provided that meat was miniscule. I also bet that the precentage of people that would give a rat’s ass about the ‘pain and suffering’ of the cattle would remain miniscule even if they knew all about the castration, ear marking, ear tagging, de-horning, hot shot use, indigestion, cramped feed lots and trailers, and the air driven bolt to the brain before being bled out that every cow providing their 4th of July feast endured. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peta-rehash-thread/310656/59 "2005-07-04T17:43:04Z")
> [@wolfman97](#): > > No, I just think that anyone who got benefits from past animal research and now seeks to deny potential benefits to others in the future is a hypocrite, regardless of the timing of when the research happened. She benefits from past animal research in the same way that you benefit from past use of slavery. She doesn’t currently use animal-research-made products, and she doesn’t prevent anyone else from taking advantage of synthetic insulin. If that’s hypocritical, it is of a very minor variety. > [@wolfman97](#): > > So are they doing anything to protect the feelings of grasshoppers and other similar insects? Maybe they are campaigning against spreading the farms with insecticide or something that I missed? What is your argument here? If they aren’t doing every conceivable thing to protect even the animals least like us then they aren’t good? Obviously they choose to help those animals that they think are most uncontroversially deserving of more kindness. > [@Unregistered Bull](#): > > I thought that it stemmed from mental defectives with bizarre fetishes for animals and a self-loathing of mankind. I have never seen any defence of the insanity of the notion of animal rights that has changed my mind yet. If you’re trying to get a rise out of me by making unwarranted claims about people that believe in animal rights, you are failing – not least of all because I don’t believe in animal rights. If you’re actually trying to make an argument, you’re failing even more badly. I would like to hear your philosophical critique of animal rights, but I sadly suspect that you don’t have one. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peta-rehash-thread/310656/60 "2005-07-04T17:52:09Z")
> [@Unregistered Bull](#): > > I thought that it stemmed from mental defectives with bizarre fetishes for animals and a self-loathing of mankind. I have never seen any defence of the insanity of the notion of animal rights that has changed my mind yet. Yes, and it is the obvious calm, dispassion, fairness, and scholarship you bring to the discussion that makes your input so valuable. Whatever would we do without your copious cites, evidence, and chains of logic? > [@](#): > > I went to a Super Wal-Mart yesterday. There had to be a couple of herds of cattle worth of meat being sold. I bet that the number of folks who gave any thought to the ‘pain and suffering’ of the cattle that provided that meat was miniscule. Argumentum ad populum. Next? (Just in case anyone thought I was avoiding his posts because of their devastating clarity or persuasiveness; I’ll try to limit future responses to posts with a shred of substance, and ignore bald statements of opinion wholly unsupported by evidence). Daniel [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peta-rehash-thread/310656.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peta-rehash-thread/310656.md?page=4)