Gosh, you’re right–I haven’t admitted to any criticism of PETA whatsoever in this thread. Please, weirddave, feel free to continue lecturing me on the perils of ad hominems.
As I said before, for some people on this board, the only correct position to adopt here toward PETA is uncritical loathing, and that any nuance in the position is branded heresy in the worst possible way. Weirddave, with his bizarre “Hitler loved dogs” Godwinization, could not possibly be a better example of this phenomenon.
And I’m still waiting for you to point out where exactly left hand of dorkness “ignored the facts and links that people are posting in favor of unsubstantiated statements and ad hominem attacks.”
And where exactly did I say that?
boyojim posted 3 links to the thread on PETA’s opinions of no-kill shelters.
I said the articles were well-written, without PETA’s usual hyperbole, and that, though I disagreed with their stance on no-kill shelters felt there was valid reasoning behind these articles.
I also pointed out that luteskywatcher was confusing two different positions that PETA has, one being their position on pet ownership and two being their position on pet overpopulation.
Addtionally, I asked what was the problem people had with PETA’s line of thought in each of the three articles that were linked. Asking people to go beyond “PETA doesn’t like no-kill shelters, the horror!” was apparently too difficult, however, because no one replied.
That said, I don’t see where I said that PETA believes in “some worthwhile things, so we should focus on those things and ignore the over the top stuff that they do as well,” so if you could point out where I said or implied that, I would appreciate it.
Again, you’ll have to point out to me where lefthandofdorkness does that.
In regards to the three articles, boyojim linked, I have heard very similar comments made by people who have absolutely no love for PETA. Would you then say to them, that their opinions have no merit because PETA espouses the same belief?
I agree with many of the positions the HSUS has. I also think the HSUS has engaged in some smear campaigns very similar to PETA’s tactics. Neither gets my support.
My dog in this fight was people using appeals to motive rather than exercising some critical thinking. Oh, and people who think its okay to pick and choose who PETA gets to harass.
I knew this was going to come out when I typed that sentence. “Godwinization”. Tell me, LHOD, do you even know what Godwins law says? It’s become a handy internet shorthand for “you lose because you’re defending NAZIs”, but that’s not it at all. Godwin’s law simply states that the longer an internet discussion goes on, the more likely it is that one of the participants will mention Hitler, the idea being that if one resorts to comparisons to Hitler, one has no legitimate arguments to make. Unfortunately for you, the mere mention of Hitler is not enough to invalidate my argument. My point, in case you missed it, was that just because an individual has a redeeming characteristic, that doesn’t negate the other things that they do. I used the common example of Hitler loved dogs. My point was directly on topic. You’re not winning any points by screaming “GODWIN!” Hitler loved dogs and did abhorrent things. You can’t wiggle out of the box you’ve built yourself just because I mentioned Hitler. Sorry about that, try some facts next time
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the abbreviation “IMO.” And weirddave, yeah, actually, the general agreement about Godwin’s law is that when you make an absurd Hitler analogy, you’ve lost.
The mere mention of Hitler does not invalidate an argument, idiot. Sure an absurd analogy qualifies under the popular usage of Godwin’s Law. The subject here is “people or organizations who do abhorrent things”, and Hitler is right at the top of that list. No absurd analogy here. You can’t scream “Godwin!” and retreat simply because you’re losing the argument. “Godwin” is not an out, it isn’t an excuse for you to ignore the lack of substance in your posts when called on it.
I am familiar with it, actually. Unless you are asserting that an opinion cannot be an argument, I am unsure of your point.
I introduced a clip from a Penn and Teller show. You offered an opinion that attacked them personally, rather than the points addressed in their show. When given a chance to support that opinion with evidence, you declined. All that remained was an attack against them; an *ad hominem *attack.
Opinions can be fact based, as I’m sure you know. For example, my opinion on who was the best baseball player of the 1950’s could be backed up with all sorts of statistics, but still be just an opinion. If all I said was “My guy’s the best because the rest are a bunch of losers,” that would still be an opinion, but one based on personal attack rather than fact.
I agree…in this case, the stated opinion of Penn & Teller really should be backed up with facts. If the statement was “IMO, P&T are not funny,” that is different, because it’s a matter of taste. But to say that they are not objective or accurate is not an opinion…they either are or they are not, and this needs to be backed up with examples that support the case.
I can win any argument by bringing up Hitler? This is excellent news.
There is always a point in the thread when things just spiral out of control into goofy belligerence. This typically happens when people start implying that other people don’t know how to read. (we all went to kollage we read gud)
And god damnit its our right as americans to enjoy the occasional pie in the face. I mean I started this thread. I don’t want PETA near anything I touch but when I saw them smash a pie into Anna Wintour’s mug, I laughed. Whats hilarious doesn’t stop being hilarious just because PETA did it. Everyone can decide for themselves who should get pied. By anyone. I would throw pies at people wearing bluetooths, nerds, men in tevas, maybe my boss, maybe valleyofthedolls. In the end though we’d laugh and hug and take a fist full of quaaludes.
I dunno. Maybe. Emotionally, it feels more like you’re saying “PETA likes animals? Well…uh…HITLER liked animals, and he didn’t turn out so good!”
I can see where invoking Godwin isn’t outside the realm of normal debate. It’s not like the thread title is “Does liking animals excuse genocide?” or something.
But my views may be colored by being vegetarian. Vegertarians are always eventually reminded that “Hitler was a vegetarian!”, over and over again, and every one of the people doing so feels it’s as germane as you seem to feel.
Well, I think we all know Hitler’s position on “better dead than caged…”
Wow…even* I* find that one tasteless…
In any case, even if one can concede (and I am by no means doing so) that PETA does some good, my question to dorkness and valley is: “Do they do more harm than good, or vice versa?”
An imminently sensible question. Having worked in animal welfare for six years, my answer is that I think they do more harm than good. They do, however, do some good, and the harm they do tends not to be especially bad (although it’s atrociously eyecatching: they’re ginormous publicity whores). Mostly they act as a way for shallow people to feel good about themselves, either by joining them or by attacking them, and divert attention from the real work that’s being done.
And as for Penn and Teller: I’m working 70-hour weeks, and I don’t have the energy to dredge up the reasons for my opinion. I don’t especially give a shit about convincing people about it, certainly not enough of a shit to give up my few moments of leisure time conducting the research necessary to show why I’ve been so irritated at the distortions and bias in the clips of the show I’ve seen. If that leads you to feel that my opinion is worthless, well, be assured that I value your opinion very highly.
Hitler murdered eleven million people:Hitler loved dogs::PETA says some outrageously stupid shit:PETA hasn’t done all the bad things people accuse them of doing.
In regards to the two links you posted, I’m assuming that you have a problem with lhod’s saying that Penn & Teller have “very little patience or accuracy.”
I think he should have backed up that statement and provided some cites but I don’t think the characterization stoops to the level of ignoring “the facts and links that people are posting in favor of unsubstantiated statements and ad hominem attacks.”
For one thing the show isn’t objective. Penn & Teller are very open about this. Wikipedia quotes Penn as saying “… we’re fair and we never take people out of context. We’re biased as all fuck. But, we try to be honest.”
Additionally, this is a Slate article on the PETA episode that Penn & Teller did. Slate liked the episode and praised it for its facts. The reviewer also said “For a group that specializes in hyperbole and emotional appeals, it’s funny to see PETA getting a taste of their own medicine.”
Hyperbole and emotional appeals aren’t a part of objectivity. So, I don’t see a problem with lhod saying that Penn & Teller are not objective. If you think Penn & Teller are an objective source of information, I’d like to hear why.
As to the accuracy part, I’d disagree with lhod if he is referring solely to the PETA episode. I saw nothing wrong with that episode. They have, however, been criticized for other shows that cover subjects more weighty than alien abductions.
How should I know? PETA doesn’t really interest me. The issue I took with this thread was how any semblance of logic or rational discourse was thrown out the window based, IMHO, solely because all or most of the participating posters don’t like the organization being discussed.
Specifically, I’m referring to lobstermobster, and boyojim getting all het up because PETA “supports” euthanasia and doesn’t like no-kill shelters. I’m also referring to lute skywatcher confusing PETA’s agenda to end pet ownership with their position on euthanasia and no-kill shelters.
If you read the links that boyojim provided, you will see that PETA has valid reasons for not liking no-kill shelters. Additionally, trumpeting that PETA “supports” euthanasia completely misinterprets their postion (and pretty much every municipal shelter out there). There are millions of animals each year that don’t have homes. These animals must go somewhere otherwise you would create an enormous public health hazard. Because there are so many animals, shelters run out of room. When this happens, animals must be euthanized to make room for a new batch of animals.
For instance, from 2002 to 2003, the CACC of New York euthanized 27,253 dogs and cats. In that same year, they adopted out 9,763 dogs and cats and returned another 1,542 back to their owners. This was probably the nadir of their existence and the situation has improved quite a bit but still from 2006-2007, 16,197 animals were euthanized (20,066 were adopted).
So it’s not about PETA rubbing their hands with glee over killing animals so that no one can own a pet, it’s being realistic about the pet overpopulation in this country and why this seems to go over people’s heads, I don’t understand. It’s simply not okay to appeal to motive and distort or omit facts because you don’t like organization X. If you or anyone else feels otherwise, I’d like to know why.
I had a longer post written up but it was eaten by the board. I have no idea whether PETA does more harm than good. PETA doesn’t interest me.
As I said above (and which you apparently didn’t bother to read) my bone of contention was people using appeals to motive rather than exercising some critical thinking.
Specifically, **lobstermobster **and boyojim getting all het up because PETA “supports” euthanasia and doesn’t like no-kill shelters. Additionally, there was lute skywatcher getting two postions of PETA’s confused (their desire to end pet ownership and their attempts to control the pet overpopulation problem in the country).
Each year produces millions of dogs and cats that don’t have homes. These animals have to go somewhere otherwise you would have an enormous public health hazard. For the most part, they wind up in municipal shelters. These shelters are inundated with animals and must euthanize dogs and cats in their care to make room for an everflowing supply of new animals. No-kill shelters do not euthanize but when they run out room, dogs and cats must go somewhere and so they usually wind up in shelters that do perform euthanasia.
For instance:
In 2002 to 2003, probably the nadir of their existence, the CACC of New York adopted out 9,763 dogs and cats and euthanized 27,753 of them. The situation has improved there but still in 2006 to 2007, 16,197 animals were euthanized (versus 20,066 adopted out).
It’s about being realistic concerning the pet overpopulation in this country and what needs to be done to fix this not about PETA rubbing their hands with glee as animals are euthanized and why the posters in this thread can’t figure it out, I don’t know. Appeals to motive and distorting and omitting facts are not okay no matter how much you may dislike organization X or Y or Z.
valleyofthedolls, I fixed the coding in your second to last post. (FYI, right now there’s a bug where if you don’t close a quote tag, the whole post shows up as blank.)
