How about denying those same kinds of medical advances to others?
In other words, the “cute” ones. Yeah, I understand that a puppy is more appealing in fund-raising letters than a spider. But let’s be real about the definition of their aims - or get a better definition. If you want to change the qualification of “central nervous system” to “central nervous system and pretty cute”, that’s OK with me.
What claims were unwarranted? Penn and Teller showed PETA’s own paperwork to prove it.
I love my dog and afford him great rights. I don’t do it for grasshoppers because they aren’t particularly cute to me. Come to think of it, that’s pretty close to PETA’s stance, too.
Okay, wolfman, it seems pretty clear you’re not arguing from evidence, either, but rather from a half-remembered partisan show dedicated to skewering PETA. I’ll let you have the last word unless and until you want to start giving real cites for your claims.
This isn’t an argument. Make an argument. How is it different?
Do you think other developing nations should be allowed to use slavery as an economic booster?
No, that’s not it at all. It isn’t clear the spiders, etc. feel pain and suffering. Further, people are more sympathetic to animals that are like them. Even if it were the case that PETA chose to protect cute animals first because that was where they could get public support, what exactly is your argument? They shouldn’t be pragmatic?
This was in response to Unregistered Bull’s post, not yours.
Because I don’t know of any medical benefits that I get from medical research that was done on slaves, for one. Maybe you can elighten me there.
Did I say I did?
But since you brought it up, it has occurred to me that slavery was hugely beneficial to a lot of people – including modern black people – for reasons that might not have occurred to you.
Did you ever see the show “Connections”? It explored odd and little-known historical connections between seemingly unrelated events. For example, Napoleon’s conquest of Europe came from brick technology. That is, a big army can’t move without adequate food. It was difficult to manage really big armies because of the need to forage off the land for supplies. That changed with the invention of canned food. Canned food was not possible without the cans which, at the time, were champagne bottles. Strong champagne bottles are not possible without strong glass, which depends on good furnaces, which depends on good furnace bricks. (Summarizing greatly, of course.)
Did you ever consider what might have happened if we had never had slavery? I have posed the question to a number of people (mostly black) and some of the answers were:
We would have no rock and roll, no jazz, and no blues music. No Beatles, no Rolling Stones, etc., etc., etc.
We would not have had the Civil War which might mean that we would consider ourselves a loose confederation of states, rather than one nation – which, in turn, might have meant that we would not have acquired the Hawaiin Islands or, if we did, we might not have viewed an attack on Pearl Harbor as an attack on all of us.
And so forth – but that’s a whole different thread. Interesting thing to postulate about though, and illustrates the huge influences that blacks have had on this nation and the world.
I fried them with magnifying glasses when I was a kid. It looked a lot like pain and suffering to me. But, regardless, I am sure there are lots of other examples for which pain and suffering is clearly evident but PETA does not protect. Snakes and crocodiles come to mind.
Yes, yes, indeed: Google is my friend. However, what you linked to was completely useless as far as evidence is concerned: it gives a generic preview for the show, along with links to the websites of various people who appear in the show. It does not offer any direct evidence to support your claims. It is as if, to support my claims, I offered a link to www.peta.org, and snippily implied that I’d proved my case.
Once again: if you’re claiming that PETA protests euthanasia at shelters, you need to offer specific evidence of this, not just a link to a show’s website that you claim showed this. Such evidence would include such things as contemporary newspaper articles, press releases from the picketed shelters, press releases from PETA, essays by people discussing the events–anything like that, which we may evaluate. What you’ve offered is insubstantial.
If you’re claiming that PETA bases their stance on being cute, you also need to offer proof. Do you, for example, think that fish are especially cute, and that this is the impetus behind PETA’s anti-fishing website? Do you think that the innate cuteness of ticks is the reason for PETA’s concession that killing insects is sometimes necessary, “just as lethal means must sometimes be used to defend ourselves against animals and humans who attack us”?
Or are you just making flip claims without researching them first?
FWIW, I think that discussing the rights of fleas only makes sense if done from a religious standpoint, and as an atheist, I reject that as an interesting argument. When I discuss animal rights as a compelling, intellectually rigorous philosophy, I am referring primarily to such philosophers as the aforementioned Tom Regan, who limits himself mostly to discussions of typical adult mammals, based on the obervable behaviors and capacities of these animals.
But it is ignorant to accuse PETA of ignoring them.
I anxiously await your cite of PETA protestors picketing a shelter for performing euthanasia.
You will find that I am not the only person who seems to have seen it.
See the show. They interviewed quite a few of the protestors, and their victims.
Yep.
No, I definitely saw the show and I am confident that I have accurately related the contents so far.
OK, whatever.
I think my accusation was that they weren’t entirely consistent.
Well, you know I went to research that a little and got sidetracked with some rather interesting stuff about how their directors are encouraging people to commit arson against restaurants, labs, and other stuff.
Yeah, maybe you are right. Maybe they didn’t advocate burning down animal shelters or anything (despite the people clearly featured on Penn and Teller). It says a whole lot more good about them that they advocate burning down restaurants, doesn’t it?
Frankly, that was enough for me. Would you agree that any organization that advocates arson is (shall we say) not consistent in their ethics (to say the least)?
Yes, I am aware that this show exists and that people have seen it. Surprisingly, these facts are not sufficient to convince me that events happened both in the show and in reality the way you described them. On the contrary, the complete absence of evidence to directly bolster your claims leads me to suspect their veracity. You’d think that if PETA members actually protested a California shelter simply for performing euthanasia, I dunno, there’d be reports of it on the Web?
So far in Googling I’ve been unable to find any specifics, except for P&T fans and PETA enemies crowing about how P&T sure showed those animal rights nuts. Again, declarations of victory do not a convincing argument make.
“Yep” as in yep, you think they support the rights of ticks solely because ticks are so cute? Dude, have you ever seen a tick?
Maybe when you were a kid you slept at night with a stuffed tick. Most of us didn’t. Ticks are damn near the apotheosis of fugly, disgusting animals.
Well, hooray. It’s still an unpersuasive argument, given as how it provides me with no information by which I may draw the same conclusions you draw.
If it is your assertion that there is no convincing evidence on the Internet to support your claims, that the only way to convince me of your claims is for me to watch a cable comedy show, then just say so. But I suspect that if there’s meat to your claims, you’ll be able to find this evidence on the Internet.
I am aware of their activities in this direction, and I condemn them. When I say that PETA does some good work, I absolutely and categorically reject the idea that their vocal (and possibly financial) support of arson is part of that good work.
No, I wouldn’t agree with that. They clearly say that they support the destruction of property when people themselves are not targeted. There’s nothing inconsistent about that, even if I disagree with what they’re doing.
Then see the show. I am sure you will find it entertaining whatever your point of view.
Lots of them. Yep, as in they support cute animals in general and don’t seem to care much about grasshoppers, snakes, and such.
What can I tell you? Showtime wants your money.
Wherever else the evidence may or may not be, I think watching it is the best method. It will be the most fun, anyway.
Glad to hear we agree on that.
Well, yes there is. You see, under the law, arson is classed as an “inherently dangerous felony”. That, in short, means that if you commit the crime you will be assumed to have a reasonable expectation that people might die in the process. Any time you are wailing about the rights of animals, and then undertake actions where there is a reasonable expectation that people might die, that isn’t exactly consistent.
I made an argument by analogy. You claim that the analogy doesn’t apply by saying the cases are different. This is not a counter-argument, of course they are different, hence the analogy. Your job is to show that they are different with respect to the argument. Both contemporary medical technology and contemporary economic success have been augmented by past practices that some consider immoral. My argument is that benefiting from either, even if you view these past practices as immoral, is not hypocritical. So far you’ve failed to answer this argument.
As for PETA not protecting every animal in every conceivable circumstance…what can I say? Your argument is ludicrous. In order for PETA to be inconsistent or dishonest in this case, they would have to be defending the rights of animals without central nervous systems that feel pain and suffering. Are they doing that? No. Your argument amounts to them not being an honest organization because they aren’t omnipotent.
In the history of ALF arson, no human has ever died or been injured as a result of ALF actions. Therefore, it is not a reasonable expectation that people might die in the process.
Your claim is about arson in general, not arson that is carefully designed to not harm any living thing.
In order to condemn ALF, you need to attack animal rights theory. Condemning their tactics as inconsistent with their philosophy won’t cut it because it isn’t inconsistent. And that goes to the heart of this thread, which is that people like to condemn PETA without having to address animal rights theory because they are uncomfortable doing the latter.
(I would still like to see the evidence of PETA’s support for ALF. LHoD, do you have a link for me?)
Tell it to the DA. He will tell you that you are wrong as a matter of law, and have been since about the very beginnings of law.
It makes no real difference under the law. If someone dies in one of those arsons, it will be Murder One, in all probability. It is called the “felony murder” rule.
Not if they are committing arson.
Check the law. Arson is an “inherently dangerous felony” under law. It doesn’t matter whether you tried to be careful.
Didn’t that last link I gave you provide an audio link of one of the PETA people about arson?
Well, one difference would be that it isn’t really possible to sort out too many ways that I benefit from slavery, as opposed to a thousand other confounding economic factors. It is possible to point to a direct connection to animal research and insulin.
But your argument basically amounts to “I got mine, and now it is synthetic, so I will now deny everyone else the chance to get theirs to the synthetic stage.” That’s hypocrisy.
Where did I say they should defend the rights of animals without a CNS? The last I heard, grasshoppers, snakes, and crocodiles all had CNSs.
I agree that if someone is killed during an arson, the arsonist should face murder charges. But I disagree that arson=murder when no one is killed. Since ALF is successful at committing arson without killing anyone, I think their tactic is consistent with their philosophy.
Further, since ALF believes that animals are equal to humans, even if they accidently killed someone in the process of saving hundreds of animals, they would still be morally consistent.
But there are two important points here:
Calling ALF a terrorist group distracts us from real terrorists.
In order to condemn ALF, you have to answer their arguments about animal rights. So far, I haven’t seen you or Unregistered Bull or any of the PETA-haters do that. That’s why I’m frustrated, not because you disagree with some of what PETA does (Daniel and I are with you on that one), but because the manner in which you disagree is disingenous and allows you to avoid having to address animal rights theory.
You’re assuming that there is no alternative to animal testing, an assumption which you have not proven.
The point is that the damage to animals has already been done with regard to insulin, so it doesn’t make any sense to not use synthetic insulin.
I was giving you an example of what being inconsistent means.
Your argument that they aren’t protecting every animal is not an argument that they are being inconsistent. You’ve merely proved that they aren’t omnipotent.
Watch the paraphrasing. I didn’t say “arson=murder”. It would be more accurate to say that arson is defined legally as “murderous intent.” And that’s a fact.
Now there is a great argument. Their philosophy is consistent with their tactics because they haven’t killed anyone yet. You don’t see any minor problems with that position, do you?
Note: It is not, and never will be, morally consistent to kill any animal – humans included - if that is their actual belief.
Who did that? As I recall, the thread was about PETA not ALF. But I don’t have any real quarrel with anyone who calls arsonists “terrorists”. That seems pretty fair to me.
Tell it to the DA. He will laugh at you, of course. Arson is an inherently dangerous felony, no matter what your motives were.
As long as someone is lighting buildings on fire, then animal rights theory is a very secondary issue, at best. And no, I wouldn’t be particularly interested in listening to any speeches on animal rights that included advocacy of arson. That falls under the category of “dangerous nut case not really deserving to be heard.”
My argument:
Given PETA’s assumptions (i.e. that animals are equal to humans), everything they do is moral, honest and consistent. Therefore, if you want to challenge PETA, you have to challenge animal rights theory. Everything else is just uninformed blustering.
So far, four serious rebuttals have been offered, here is a summary of the replies:
The hypocrisy of the director of PETA makes PETA inconsistent with their own values.
Even if a member of the organization does something hypocritical in their personal life, this does not make PETA as an organization hypocritical, it makes that member hypocritical.
The damage done by insulin research has already been done. Ingrid Newkirk’s use of synthetic insulin does not harm or contribute to the harm of any animals.
Since PETA believes that medical research can be done without the use of animals, it is not inconsistent for Ms. Newkirk to use synthetic insulin which was the result of animal testing.
PETA’s disposal of animals makes them inconsistent with their own values.
The humane euthanization of animals is necessary since the alternatives are less humane.
PETA does not criticize others for humane euthanization when it is absolutely necessary. (though this point is in dispute until more evidence from Penn and Teller’s show is made available.)
PETA’s support of ALF makes them inconsistent with their own values.
Everything ALF does is moral if you assume that animals are morally equal to humans. Even if they harm some people, most moral systems agree that harming someone unintentionally in the pursuit of moral aims using moral means does not make one immoral (unless you believe, for example, that war and violence can never be moral.)
That the legal system considers ALF’s tactics to be illegal and tantamount to murder is simply a reflection of the fact that the legal system doesn’t share ALF’s assumptions. Hence, the central issue is indeed whether animals are equal to humans or not.
PETA’s offensive billboards make them inconsistent with their own values.
PETA’s billboards are offensive to some people that disagree with PETA, but not to people that believe in or are unsure about animal rights.
