Ethical, humane treatment of animals is an issue I am passionate about. I was a member of PETA way back around the time they first formed, stopped sending money as they became more extreme in their tactics and now find them utterly idiotic. I honestly believe that each time they come up with a new, revolting campaign, like the recent one that referenced Holocaust victims, people find reasons to care less and less about whether or not animals are treated humanely. I can’t think of any group that has done so much to marginalize an issue - at least one I care about, anyway.
“…teachings and false senses of guilt or embarassment.”
Now we know about where your definition of morality is from:
"...to have a hat worn ~" (or not) is your teaching (or not)
It is you that are your morals. ('fairness' now is of the man's wants is then the rule.)
All until your father if in not telling you about "the hat" noticed you doing~ as he (believing) ~with respect to the hat (or not) shares, 'But know this, son: flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but the Giver of morals did, and on this rock is built together all those called out by such of the Giver's revelation...
And now not so simple,
is it, such that when man sets himself as the 'moral'-giver and his own 'fairness'-definer,
then the next man can simply state "that may be moral for you to call my senses false, but for me your judgement of my morality is false, and not my senses, nor my teachings passed down nearly 3500 years before the victorian era...
Same two views appear:
1) in want ~a person calls false morality within certain senses
what 2) a Giver may have revealed for a person to freely choose and teach to others who freely choose to hear for to believe.
POLITELY ASKING:
Is their more 'right' sense in random chance-cooling of this Earth by rain on a hot mass, solidified with a protein soup of life from non-life goo, to be found as living-goo to-the-zoo and then: you , a person now judging what is morally a false sense of guilt?
Or is there more 'right' in a Giver-of-life's 'rights' by design , if chosen freely to believe and realize...?
You know: Is one's relativity REALLY TRUE, or just not absolutely true?
I think it can not be both, knowing what can be chosen in beliefs.
QGG–do you wear contact lenses? Do you use bandages? When you seek medical treatment, do you expect that the devices and medications used on you will not cause kidney failure or raging fevers? What about pacemakers? Any of your older relatives had one of those? Or a catheter? Or pretty much any surgery out there?
NONE of those things would exist without animal testing. And if they did, they’d be so dangerous as to be useless. I’m an animal lover to my core, but when it comes down to my son’s life, or the life of a couple lab rats (who are very well cared for and humanely euthanitized), you’re damn straight I’m picking my son every time. As much as you might espouse a belief in a world without animal experimentation, I highly doubt that you’d actually want to live in it.
While I agree with you on the destruction of natural habitats bit, the fact of the matter is that many animals still exist strictly because of zoos and preserves and the efforts of those who maintain them. Natural habitats are already gone in a lot of places, and without the work of those who care for and help breed rare and endangered animals they might soon dissapear altogether.
Well, they’ve been shown to be financial supporters of both ALF and ELF. If that’s not enough for you, take note that researchers and scientists are frequently hounded and harassed both at their homes and their jobs. There has been more than one instance of a scientist leaving their position because of threats made against their families. I have cites on my work computer, and will post them Monday if necessary. In the three years I’ve been at my job, we’ve had three bomb threats that necessitated evacuation and closing down the facility for the day. One of the threateners claimed to be a PETA member. Do you know what happens when animals on study miss a day of dosing or observations? They have to be euthanized, and a whole new set of animals used. Seems rather counterproductive then, to ensure that out work is disrupted don’t you think?
Maybe you should find out a bit more about the way PETA operates. There are plenty of rational, moderate animal rights groups out there who could desperately use the support of rational, moderate animal lovers. PETA, however, is not one of them.
belladonna, just to let you know, I clicked on one of your links and it took me to an obviously biased article with no cites to where they got their information. Seems pretty useless to try and debunk what PeTA says with a source that’s just as biased as they. When I see an official financial statement stating that PeTA gave funds to ALF, I’ll back down in a heartbeat and say I was incorrect.
I’m going to reply to your post in a more step-by-step way as soon as I have time to read it thoroughly and check out all of your links, because you’ve raised some really good points. Until then, can I ask you to save the stridency? This isn’t a Pit argument, and I really don’t intend to make it one.
I don’t believe that Cecil is wrong here. Gary Null, author of * Natural Pet Care* states:
If I remember correctly, in the human realm, he does push a more vegetarian diet focusing on whole foods and organic foods. Yes, they (cats) can have some non-meat or dairy products (in fact if you buy milk and intend to give it to your cat, select one of the no-lactose milks or the specialized cat milks as many cats have little tolerance for lactose) but over all, an animal protein based diet is much more healthy and suitable for them to maintain their major organs.
On to PETA…eh, for the most part, I think the organization is full of poo. I think meat is entirely appropriate for human consumption, why would God or whatever you may or may not worship put them here? To play with? They are a good source of protein and just like anything else, in moderation, is good for you. I also think that medical testing is appropriate provided the animals are treated as humanely as possible under the circumstances. I would rather see them focus on helping animals that need their help like putting their money to help slow the population of strays who may end up being euthanized in a kill-shelter. How about helping erradicate puppy mills where the conditions can be horrid? What about animals that are from domestically abusive homes, many of those animals are treated just as poorly as the abused child or spouse? There are many worse causes they could be throwing their hard earned money and attention to that don’t make a good majority of the population shake their heads with their outrageous campains.
Throwing blood (fake or not) at a model’s face while she’s wearing a fur is just stupid. Touting beer instead of milk to college students was news worthy but incredibly moronic. They use “scare” tactics or general stupidity to get out their message. If they want people to take them seriously, they need to work WITH those industries they want change in, not against them in the manner they have.
I generally eat a vegetarian diet but on occasion I enjoy a thick juicy steak. Chicken doesn’t do anything for me, because of the poor practices of the slaughter houses…when I do buy animal products I buy organic as much as my wallet can afford them.
The piece seems very slanted, but then again, are the charges true? Sort of a separate question. I’d regard myself as supporting animal rights - I have problems with fur and cosmetic testing, though I’m not going to attack people for it - and I very much disagreed with the terrorist thing when I first heard it. But it seems to me that it’s actually true… even if it’d not, some of PETA’s campaigns have been just repugnant. I can’t imagine they think they’re convincing anybody they’re right, just annoying people and using celebrities to blackmail companies.
Very classy. Start out the thread sounding like you’re going for open debate, and then jump all over somebody the second they disagree with you.
Anyway, to answer the OP, that’s exactly the kind of thing I hate about PETA. It’s either you agree with everything, or you’re running over kittens with lawnmowers. For me, I believe that not only is it okay to eat meat, but it’s necessary. So no PETA for me. But have fun being self-righteous!
So…does this mean, QGG, that dissenting opinions aren’t welcome here because of the forum? Belladonna doesn’t seem nearly as strident as you seem to think, and is backing up her views nicely.
If you want stridency, look at your own organization, which winks at terrorism in the name of animal rights.
(From the PETA website)
“How can you justify the millions of dollars’ worth of property damage by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF)?”
Throughout history, some people have felt the need to break the law to fight injustice. The Underground Railroad and the French Resistance are both examples of people breaking the law in order to answer to a higher morality.
“The ALF,” which is simply the name adopted by people acting illegally in behalf of animal rights, breaks inanimate objects such as stereotaxic devices and decapitators in order to save lives. It burns empty buildings in which animals are tortured and killed. ALF “raids” have given us proof of horrific cruelty that would not have been discovered or believed otherwise. They have resulted in officials’ filing of criminal charges against laboratories, citing of experimenters for violations of the Animal Welfare Act, and, in some cases, shutting down of abusive labs for good. Often ALF raids have been followed by widespread scientific condemnation of the practices occurring in the targeted labs.
Seriously, do PETA members wish that animal experiments had NEVER EVER happened, and would they be happy with millions of already dead diabetics, just for starters? I sell life insurance, and I sometimes meet people who have been on diabetic meds for decades. The pills are now controlling the disease so well that some diabetics pay the lowest possible rate.
This all started with Fredrick Banting experimenting on dogs and finding that diabetes was linked to a non-functioning pancreas.
I’m trying hard not to be sarcastic with this. What is PETA’s position? Is it that it would be better for the people to be dead? Would PETA supporters here really trade their grandparents’ last ten years for the dead animals? (I just mean that so many older people develop diabetes that it’s almost a given that one of your four will get it in some form eventually.)
“Now that the Federal Prison system offers a vegetarian meal plan, Timothy McVeigh should not be allowed to take even one more life,” wrote PETA’s Vegan Campaign coordinator Bruce Friedrich. “Make Timothy McVeigh’s final meals meatless… Wiping meat off of all inmates’ plates could help killers lose their taste for blood. This would send a powerful message… Feeding inmates bean burritos rather than baby back ribs might just help break the cycle of violence.”
PETA, for all you carnivores looking forward to the summer barbecuing season in blessed ignorance, stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Founder Ingrid Newkirk articulates its credo: “A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. There is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights.”
This really and truly doesn’t strike PETA members as wacky?
Concerning belladonna’s post, I often wonder if the fanatics of PETA have any idea how beneficial animal research is to all animals, humans included.
Again, I see nothing wrong with treating animals in a more humane way, but what’s so wrong about humans eating meat? We are omnivores, after all. If I ever see a PETA member dressed up as a blood-soaked zebra who’s telling a lion to go vegetarian (and the PETA member succeeds), I’ll quit eating meat.
Many people do not share that sentiment. I value the lives of animals, but I value the lives of humans even more. You can bet that any social animal would value the lives of its own species over the lives of any other species.
Countless lives are saved thanks to animal experimentation. I feel that the animal test subjects should be treated as humanely as possible, but if finding a cure for cancer requires thousands of lab rats to die horrible, painful deaths, so be it. That position may seem unfeeling, and I would be disgusted at the thought of torturing rats for no reason, but the potential benefits more than outweigh the less-than-savory means used to get there.
Why? Humans are pretty much designed to eat meat. Yes, we can do without it, but special dietary supplements are required. Eating meat is in our nature. As long as the food is treated humanely while it’s still alive (something that, admittedly, needs some more work) I have no problem eating their flesh once they’re dead.
Zoos aid in keeping some species from going completely extinct.
I know what you’re getting at, but the entire planet isn’t our natural habitat the exclusion of everything else. We have the capability to preserve nature while advancing ourselves and I see no reason we shouldn’t make every effort to do so.
