*NOTE*
I will be updating this probably weekly (unless big news breaks). The current outlook for November is identical in the polls as it was last week, that is, Obama should win:
*END OF NOTE*
Before I start properly though, I want to ask, how is it being kind to an animal to cut off it's testicles?
On the internets it is not hard to find a website that promotes the love of one specific group of things. From fan clubs of TV shows to sites that spew forth the good things about bestiality, we are told to love the whales, love the trees, love each other, love God, etc. The Internet is full of these websites. Then there is PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), a website/organization that is dedicated to the ethical treatment of animals via legislation, protests, lies and violence. PETA is an interesting group, as they claim to be attempting to remove the corporate veil of secrecy (LIES) and reveal the TRUTH of what is happening behind the scenes. Then, you know, they out and lie about it; that encourages all of us to be so trusting of this organization. PETA riles me up for four primary reasons: Their attack on person who care about animals - They provide insane propaganda - They encourage terrorist groups - PETA lies. Yes, I know, I have more than my normal three reasons; the world is coming to an end. PETA: What Really Grinds my Gigantic Notched Wheels.
They attack people who care about animals:
I do not know about you, but if somebody agreed with my organization I would not go out of my way to try and discredit, attack, and deamonize that person. Yet, that is exactly what PETA does. They attacked Jack Hanna (PETA Claims this is their own letter) because he goes out of his way to show the animals (which increases the knowledge of how endangered they are) and that is not natural. They attacked Steve Irwin for provoking these animals into reactions, which, then encourages the young viewers to care about the animals. Also, do not forget that PETA does not approve of zoos; that is right, they do not believe that the primary help of endangered animals is a good thing. PETA needs to realize that these people actually increase the overall knowledge of conservation and helping save animals, and PETA should stop bitting the hand that helps them.
They provide insane propaganda:
This video is one put out by PETA about cruelty to animals.
When any organization decides to give graphic and misleading information to children like PETA does you need to start getting a little worried. PETA outputs videos that are very emotionally disturbing and gut wrenching for a reason, because they know it will evoke a response from us. The problem is, most of these videos are misleading or incorrect. They mention the worker who sticks his finger up a chicken clocala (live, supposedly), but miss the fact that one worker is one worker. There are people who are screw ups in every group, people who get sick pleasure out of pain in others. PETA uses that one person to say the entire industry is that way. Furthermore, PETA sends out information to kids about the horrors of dissection which very interestingly mention the taking of pets to use in these classrooms. They conveniently leave out the fact that PETA kills pets quite often. As with any group that utilizes propaganda, you need to be very careful when looking at PETA.
They encourage terrorist groups:
For this section, two quotes ought to be all that is needed:
"I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow.” -PETA Vice President Bruce Friedrich
"Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable crimes' when used for the animal cause." -Alex Pacheco, Director, PeTA
PETA engages in funding and supporting of terrorist activities. They not only encourage illegal acts via their wording (as listed above), but they also fund these far-left eco-terrorist groups. PETA even supported and funded a guy who THEY KNEW was planning on burning down a MSU research lab. Anytime you have a group that encourages, supports, and funds terrorists I think that we have a major problem on our hands.
PETA Lies:
More or less, this section is simply a culmination of all the other sections. PETA attacks people for doing something (like Jack Hanna or Irwin) and then does the same thing themselves. The put out material that is gut-wrenching yet full of lies. PETA attacks those who they claim kill pets and then goes and kills pets. They attack those who harm animals yet defend those who bomb humans (do remember, we are animals too). PETA is an organization that exists as a lie, and is entirely run via lies. Any group that requires lies to win over supporters or to get money is not a good organization and not one that anybody can trust.
As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Thanks,
Barga,
Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
barga.24@osu.edu
17 comments:
peta may be intensely misguided but at least they don't post on gaiaonline
well said.
First one - Your point?
Second - Thanks
Agrab: I'm pretty sure he's mocking you. P:
As if you didn't already know.
I know that
Pam Anderson is a big advocate for PETA. How can you take her seriously with those big fake boobs? Yet she thinks she has a right to judge others for wearing fur. Give me a break. Those PETA folks should have to go without food then live on a farm so they can understand what animals are and what their purpose is. I wonder if they eat eggs???
Okay that video is so fucking funny "and chickens die of heart attacks and starvation from their legs getting too big and they can't reach the food! "what a load of BULL SHIT! I hate peta. I love you XD
speaking of pam anderson... the roast was funny, but I really don't think it was worth the massive donation Comedy Central made to PETA in order to get her to do it.
So, you believe that they somehow fabricated the images of animals being tortured because we receive a passing pleasure from how their flesh tastes?
I wonder who looks worst: PETA after being attacked in the post, or the commenter who mocks the unimaginable suffering being experienced by the animals in the video?
Why is PETA "intensely misguided"?
How is petakids.com "misleading"? They are presenting a counter argument to the dominant ideology: animals are not things.
Remember, the reverse must also true. From advertisements to our parents' actions, children are conditioned to believe that animals represent a very specific status. PETA's efforts merely represent a challenge to this initial act of conditioning. Their message is aimed at children because they, like the rest of society, understand that children are less calcified in dominant norms and therefore they are more apt to be willing to hear different messages. Prejudices become hardened quickly; PETA wants to challenge our speciesism prior to its calcification.
It follows that if what PETA is doing is wrong, than so is what we are all doing.
Quote:
"--Various reasons. To actively change the opinion of the country they need to change everybody’s opinion of them... I.e, distance yourself from the wack-job activists--"
I agree, if you define "wack-job activists" as consistent. What's interesting is that you disagree with factory farming (as you stated at "That Vegan Girl"), which represents about 99% of the problem that PETA is attempting to challenge. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that your hostility to PETA is less warranted than you even believe.
Quote:
"--Animals are things, well, most animals are things, until they come to a rationale-like behavior (humans, ape, field mice, octopus, dolphin, elephant, etc.) they are thing. Petakids basically is saying your parents are evil. Present the case for vegi, but don't call it a sin and give them the gross pictures--"
So you necessarily exclude all human babies ever born because, according to behavioral science, evolutionary biology and common sense, an adult cow is surely more "rational" than a new born baby. Are babies’ things? We could raise the question: What about the severely mentally challenged, or some senile elderly? According to your standard, they are things - they have to be if you are to remain consistent.
A response, "Well, those groups are humans, so it doesn't count," doesn't follow logically or ethically because that parallels the reasoning of the most blatant racist who appeals to race instead of species; or the sexist who appeals to sex.
Again, then, since you didn't respond the first time. PETA displays the reality of factory farming to children -- yes, saying, this is wrong and it shouldn't be happening -- where our parents try to convince us of the idealic farms in children’s books and cartoons -- saying this is okay, "natural" even, so don't worry about it. PETA wants children to connect the flesh they are eating with a living, experiencing being; our parents want to shield that aspect of life from their children. Both groups intuitively know that it is in our youth that children accept the dominant norms.
If one message is political then the counter message necessarily has to be so as well. You cannot logically separate the two. The only reasonable conclusion, then, is: "...if what PETA is doing is wrong, than so is what we are all doing."
I agree, if you define "wack-job activists" as consistent. What's interesting is that you disagree with factory farming (as you stated at "That Vegan Girl"), which represents about 99% of the problem that PETA is attempting to challenge. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that your hostility to PETA is less warranted than you even believe.
--My issue is that PETA funds and assists the very groups that are listed as eco-terrorists and that attack those using animals for research under ethical conditions. PETA, if they stepped away and disowned these people (like Obama did to Wright) would be a lot better--
So you necessarily exclude all human babies ever born because, according to behavioral science, evolutionary biology and common sense, an adult cow is surely more "rational" than a new born baby. Are babies’ things? We could raise the question: What about the severely mentally challenged, or some senile elderly? According to your standard, they are things - they have to be if you are to remain consistent.
--Tell you what, give me your email and I will email you my essay on what I think Humans are... Basically, I contend that until they are rational and able to communicate they are not beings of worth (per say)--
A response, "Well, those groups are humans, so it doesn't count," doesn't follow logically or ethically because that parallels the reasoning of the most blatant racist who appeals to race instead of species; or the sexist who appeals to sex.
--Straw man, homo sapiens are homo sapiens.--
Again, then, since you didn't respond the first time. PETA displays the reality of factory farming to children -- yes, saying, this is wrong and it shouldn't be happening -- where our parents try to convince us of the idealic farms in children’s books and cartoons -- saying this is okay, "natural" even, so don't worry about it. PETA wants children to connect the flesh they are eating with a living, experiencing being; our parents want to shield that aspect of life from their children. Both groups intuitively know that it is in our youth that children accept the dominant norms.
--My issue is the fact that they show these to kids. No kid should see those images, period. Plus, they don't talk about the fact that most farms do not act like this, and they imply that it is a common occurance
"Terrorism" is defined so broadly under the A.E.T. Act that protesting outside of McDonalds could be a punishable offense as an act of "economic terrorism." Without paying attention to the external factors motivating the label, a sound conclusion will be lacking.
However, PETA's official statement on terrorism is a negative one. While Ingrid Newkirk doesn't condemn the A.L.F., for example, PETA does not officially support their actions. Ms. Newkirk's position is simple: if an animal is being experimented upon while conscious and a human animal rescues her from this plight, the action isn't automatically ethically indefensible.
The charge of "financing terrorism" is dubious at best given that the evidence is inconsistent. Indeed, if it weren't, as the Department of Homeland Security has stated, PETA would be held legally accountable. As they haven't, your argument is resting on solid grounds.
Quote:
"...attack those using animals for research under ethical conditions."
Well that's a substantive moral claim. I believe it's erroneous. We can have that debate; PETA has made the debate public. The point, then, is this: What is wrong with raising the question? PETA challenges the premise, you support it. So, defend it and they will do the same.
I'm not defending "terrorism," I'm simply saying that the situation isn't as "black and white" as you seem to assume it is. We need to clarify the misconceptions.
Quote:
"Basically, I contend that until they are rational and able to communicate they are not beings of worth (per say)--"
Surely you mean they aren't "moral persons," not "human," given that, by definition, if you are a member of the species Homo sapiens, you are a human being. It's ridiculous to argue otherwise.
You at least imply, then, that human babies are property, which a mother, for example, can do with as she chooses, ethically? Would you, then, find it ethically defensible for a mother to tether her daughter to a post for months on end so tightly that she is incapable of turning around until the moment that her mother decides to sell her to the highest bidder for their consumption?
If not, your argument isn't really going anywhere as you assume a difference between what you believe makes a "moral person," all the human non-moral persons, and the nonhuman animal non-moral persons. What, then, is this difference?
It isn't a "straw man" given that you just argued that simply being a member of our species doesn't make you a member of the moral community. To say, "Homo sapiens are Homo sapiens" isn't an argument at all; it's just a statement. It, of course, begs the question: So what? What's so special about human animals? It isn't "rationality" because then you would have to admit that some mentally challenged people are property, like cows. If you challenge this by saying they belong to our species and that's all that matters, that's just like the sexist who says a penis is all that matters. There isn't a logical difference.
Quote:
"--My issue is the fact that they show these to kids. No kid should see those images, period. Plus, they don't talk about the fact that most farms do not act like this, and they imply that it is a common occurrence."
They don't imply it, they say it. What evidence do you have to support your statement that "most farms...."?
Second, if parents presented true images of "food production," as opposed to fictionalized versions of farming, PETA would not have to respond. Therefore, PETA must act accordingly given that we socialize our children into an idealized version that is unconnected to reality. Again, then, you tell your child the truth, present the other side of the political message, and PETA will not have to do so.
"Children shouldn't have to see..." isn't a defense at all; it's the point. I would argue the contrary: they shouldn't be deceived by their parents and society writ large with "happy cheese comes from happy cows" commercials, and Ol'McDonalds farms. For you to be consistent, then, you would have to condemn the deception as well.
Parents don't look kindly on messages that may create confusion and discomfort with the way things are. You haven't defended it, nor have you effectively challenged my point that it's a counter-message, valid and legitimate if the original one is also, you have only further proven my point about PETA's necessity.
PETA challenges the dominant norm that we force are children to submit too.
"Terrorism" is defined so broadly under the A.E.T. Act that protesting outside of McDonalds could be a punishable offense as an act of "economic terrorism." Without paying attention to the external factors motivating the label, a sound conclusion will be lacking.
--you know damn well what I am talking about
However, PETA's official statement on terrorism is a negative one. While Ingrid Newkirk doesn't condemn the A.L.F., for example, PETA does not officially support their actions. Ms. Newkirk's position is simple: if an animal is being experimented upon while conscious and a human animal rescues her from this plight, the action isn't automatically ethically indefensible.
--PETA should take a hard stance as should all of their higher-ups--
--The charge of "financing terrorism" is dubious at best given that the evidence is inconsistent. Indeed, if it weren't, as the Department of Homeland Security has stated, PETA would be held legally accountable. As they haven't, your argument is resting on solid grounds.--
Civil cases are pending
Well that's a substantive moral claim. I believe it's erroneous. We can have that debate; PETA has made the debate public. The point, then, is this: What is wrong with raising the question? PETA challenges the premise, you support it. So, defend it and they will do the same.
--Humans are superior to animals, period. That is an inherent fact of all species that they want their own to survive. Provided it is necessary for our own survival (cancer drugs, AIDS, etc.) and ethically done (treatment etc) then it is fine--
Surely you mean they aren't "moral persons," not "human," given that, by definition, if you are a member of the species Homo sapiens, you are a human being. It's ridiculous to argue otherwise.
--Human=/= species--
You at least imply, then, that human babies are property, which a mother, for example, can do with as she chooses, ethically? Would you, then, find it ethically defensible for a mother to tether her daughter to a post for months on end so tightly that she is incapable of turning around until the moment that her mother decides to sell her to the highest bidder for their consumption?
--I do not eat or support veal, try again--
It isn't a "straw man" given that you just argued that simply being a member of our species doesn't make you a member of the moral community. To say, "Homo sapiens are Homo sapiens" isn't an argument at all; it's just a statement. It, of course, begs the question: So what? What's so special about human animals? It isn't "rationality" because then you would have to admit that some mentally challenged people are property, like cows. If you challenge this by saying they belong to our species and that's all that matters, that's just like the sexist who says a penis is all that matters. There isn't a logical difference.
--You are arguing that an arbitrary definition is equal to a scientific one.--
They don't imply it, they say it. What evidence do you have to support your statement that "most farms...."?
--I live in Ohio, I know my farms. I have family that farms, family near farms, and friends that farm. Trust me, I know Ohio. Hell, PETA admits (i had to dig to find it) that they rarely get any violent or abusive images on their trips--
PETA challenges the dominant norm that we force are children to submit too.
--I have no issue with them challenging it. I don't think that kids that young should see pictures of Genital Warts, Aborted Babies, or Mike Tyson. When they are older then show it to them--
When PETA is actually charged with a crime then you argument will sound less like a baseless claim regarding their support of "terrorism." Do you tell people, "Listen, they haven't actually been criminally charged with anything, so all this stuff about 'supporting terrorism' is kind of a fabrication"? That would be honest - do you want to be honest?
My statement about the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is still valid; which make's my following claim about understanding how we define certain acts as "wrong," defensible.
Quote:
"Humans are superior to animals, period. That is an inherent fact of all species that they want their own to survive. Provided it is necessary for our own survival (cancer drugs, AIDS, etc.) and ethically done (treatment etc) then it is fine--"
Pigs are more intelligent than human infants. Many mentally retarded human animals are less rational than adult cows, given basic biological knowledge. Emotionally speaking, the complex social hierarchies of whales mimics that of human hierarchies. "Human's are just superior" is merely a statement; not an argument.
What "fact" can you cite that A) proves "human superiority" and B) that includes all human animals and excludes all nonhuman animals? If you cannot identify that dividing characteristic, your claim about "human superiority" is no more ethically defensible than individuals with high IQ's making the claim that all human beings who have IQ's of 70 or less ought to serve as means to their ends (with IQ's higher than 70).
This argument leads to your non-answer here:
Quote:
"--Human=/= species--"
Again, that's just a statement. Yes, as an empirical claim, humans are humans (which includes fetuses as well). However, the question is: Why do we included all human babies, the severely mentally challenged, and some mentally deranged elderly in our moral community if we are trying to cite a specific characteristic that make's all human beings more important than all nonhuman animals?
Just think about it, it doesn't work. You have to identify something else, not rationality or moral reasoning, or else you necessarily have to conclude that some mentally challenged human beings are mere "property," not deserving of any moral consideration. The question, then, is: Do you believe that? Are you willing to follow through on that claim?
You have essentially made a claim that parallels that following logic: Women belong to another sex that I believe is inferior to the male sex. That statement of fact is all I need to make a moral conclusion. Clearly you haven't made a coherent moral conclusion, just as the sexist hasn't.
Quote:
"You at least imply, then, that human babies are property, which a mother, for example, can do with as she chooses, ethically? Would you, then, find it ethically defensible for a mother to tether her daughter to a post for months on end so tightly that she is incapable of turning around until the moment that her mother decides to sell her to the highest bidder for their consumption?"
Do you drink milk? If you do, then you are indirectly supporting the veal industry because without baby cows we would not have milk to drink (remember, mammals only produce milk when pregnant), and therefore, to make a profit from these baby cows, the veal industry steps in and forces most male babies into the conditions that you just implicitly attacked. My question again then: Do you drink milk?
Let's change my hypothetical then, to prove that you don't actually believe babies, regardless of their lacking capacities, are not property, but they are, in fact, "persons" deserving of moral consideration for other, more basic, reasons:
You at least imply, then, that human babies are property, which a mother, for example, can do with as she chooses, ethically? Would you, then, find it ethically defensible for a mother to place her child in a cage so small that her limbs actually grow around the wire mesh; where others like her will die, and when their carcasses are not removed, the mothers daughter will have to live on top of the rotting corpuses of others. We do this because in these conditions, good scientific subjects are "made." She will live this way until the moment that her mother decides to sell her to the highest bidder for scientific exploitation.
Quote:
"--You are arguing that an arbitrary definition is equal to a scientific one.--"
That doesn't even follow. Sex isn't "arbitrary," it is scientific.
Quote:
"Hell, PETA admits (i had to dig to find it) that they rarely get any violent or abusive images on their trips--"
HSUS, COK, FARM Sanctuary, FARM, etc. etc. All these other groups present precisely the same findings. Are they fabricating evidence as well, or is it all one giant exaggeration?
Quote:
"-I have no issue with them challenging it. I don't think that kids that young should see pictures of Genital Warts, Aborted Babies, or Mike Tyson. When they are older then show it to them--"
When parents begin telling the truth to their children, this contrary message will not be necessary.
are you asking me to prove that humans are smarter than other animals, because then I need to know what exactly indicates as smart. My argument is simple,as a species, we need to rely on other species to survive. Sure, we eat animals, but it is too survive. I see nothing wrong with that. You seem to think I am for harming the animals undoly and the like. I am not, in any sense
that said, I don't trust PETA because of their outright lies...
Also, unless you can prove that 50% of the meat is tortured before being fed to us you can not show that the meat industry, et all, is bad
a
Quote:
"My argument is simple,as a species, we need to rely on other species to survive. Sure, we eat animals, but it is too survive. I see nothing wrong with that."
If that's your primary premise, and it is valid, your conclusion would follow. However, what do you do about those people who live, and have lived, healthily and happily as vegans? Does there health go to challenge your claim that "we need to eat animal flesh to survive"? I think yes. I could cite Carl Lewis, for example, or entire cultures throughout the Indian sub-continent.
As it's true, then, that we can survive without forcing another being to suffer, directly, shouldn't we try to avoid doing so if we accept the premise that suffering is impartially bad? Indirect suffering will occur, however, this is also true and admitted in human ethics, so it's not a reasonable challenge to ethical veganism.
Quote:
"are you asking me to prove that humans are smarter than other animals, because then I need to know what exactly indicates as smart."
That's ridiculous. Why would I want that argument? I'm smarter than many, many human animals. Adult pigs are smarter, objectively, than human infants. Many great apes (excluding Homo sapiens) are smarter than many human animals. However, ethically speaking, so what?
My point should be clear -- When you make species generalizations all you do is beg the question: What's so great about human beings? You inevitably begin to cite "reason," "intelligence," "rationalist," etc. However, this goes to challenge our practice. What about some mentally challenged human animals, human babies, some severely senile, and other demented human animals who surely are not "rational," "reasonable," "intelligent," etc.? Should their interests in not being in pain because I get a passing pleasure from it, count, ethically?
To include these human animals, then, you have to revert back to a declaration by fiat that "species" counts -- membership in the human species. Besides not answer the begged question, this raises another question: How do you challenge other appeals to biologisms? The most blatant racist, for example, says, "It's membership in my group that counts, regardless of any other capacities." That logic parallels your appeal to species membership. So, how do we accept speciesism while trying to challenge the racist, or the sexist?
I want to argue that suffering is impartially bad -- this is a principle we hold. Because some animals can be harmed in similar ways as us, with similar (perhaps greater) intensity, our refusal to admit their interests in not being in pain, for example, in our moral deliberations isn't ethical; it's a prejudice like sexism. From this, certain practices -- veganism, for example -- follow.
Post a Comment