Why can't PETA and all these militant groups just be normal for a change?

[AeonicSlumber]

So I guess this is going to be more or less an open discussion on the ethics of our relationship to animals, but the idea to start a discussion was spurred by a few recent things.

The other day, I was watching the Daily Show and they reported on this:

http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/...or-violating-orcas-constitutional-rights.aspx

There are so many things wrong with this that it makes my head spin. For one thing, as someone pointed out - if we treat Orca Wales as legal humans, do we charge them with murder for killing people (which they do on occasion)?

For another - they get so worked up about exploitation that they themselves go ahead and exploit the deaths of every black American who fought to get the 13th amendment passed with this stupid publicity platform (it's black history month and it seems that press for this suit is at a high right now as the Daily Show's report noted)?

I am all for animal welfare, and I really do think that alot of what goes on in terms of the mass commercialism of animals is appalling beyond words - but do these groups really help the cause by acting like idiots? Over the summer, I read an interview with Rikki Rockett from Poison in which he declared all Zoos as profit schemes. Why can't there be NORMAL activist groups who fight against the abusers without painting broad strokes over everything in their wake - doing more damage than actually helping? Why can't these people be sane for a change?

 

[Cheiron]

While I am a vegan in favor of 'animal rights' (complicated subject which I won't get into on this post), I am not a fan of PETA. PETA uses shock ads, to get attention, and to gain donations. Overall, PETA does very little good. Perhaps they've attracted a few people into veganism, that otherwise wouldn't have, but if the funds they received were used more intelligently, I think that they could have assisted with the transformation of far more people. I think that PETA's actions create a more vehement opposition, and those that won't even consider veganism because they hate PETA.

I do support other organizations such as In Defense of Animals.

 

[modernwizardry]

While I am a vegan in favor of 'animal rights' (complicated subject which I won't get into on this post), I am not a fan of PETA. PETA uses shock ads, to get attention, and to gain donations. Overall, PETA does very little good. Perhaps they've attracted a few people into veganism, that otherwise wouldn't have, but if the funds they received were used more intelligently, I think that they could have assisted with the transformation of far more people. I think that PETA's actions create a more vehement opposition, and those that won't even consider veganism because they hate PETA.

I do support other organizations such as In Defense of Animals.

It's like you wrote exactly what I was gonna say. Except I'm only vegetarian.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

While I am a vegan in favor of 'animal rights' (complicated subject which I won't get into on this post), I am not a fan of PETA. PETA uses shock ads, to get attention, and to gain donations. Overall, PETA does very little good. Perhaps they've attracted a few people into veganism, that otherwise wouldn't have, but if the funds they received were used more intelligently, I think that they could have assisted with the transformation of far more people. I think that PETA's actions create a more vehement opposition, and those that won't even consider veganism because they hate PETA.

I do support other organizations such as In Defense of Animals.

Without looking to offend you, veganism has always been a curiosity for me. Do you feel that everyone should be vegan, or do you feel that it is just your own personal choice? I guess my point is, since now there are studies showing that vegans and vegetarians actually kill more animals by eating an entirely vegetarian diet than by actually eating meat*, how do you reconcile it?

For example, I have a vegetarian friend who dictates his decisions based on the intelligence of the animal. If he actually liked chicken, he'd eat it (providing it was from a humane farm) because chickens aren't very intelligent animals, compared to say a pig which is an extremely intelligent animal. To me, I have the most respect for this sort of "moderate" vegetarianism because it's about picking your battles. You're simply not going to win with broad-stroking philosophies. Otherwise you run into huge dilemmas.

For example, PETA protested Super Mario 3D Land because Mario wears a Tanuki suit, and in Asia Tanukis are killed for their furs. I feel like this argument is the very thesis of the entire militant vegan movement's failure. They care about the Tanukis, but what about the turtles that Mario stomps on? Or the fish? Or the moles? The fact of the matter is, there shouldn't be a once size fits all ethical policy to this issue, because then the group just looks stupid. For every cow a newly-turned vegan-thanks-to-PETA doesn't eat, mice, rabbits, snakes, etc die due to farmers needing to expand their crops to supply consumers with a vegan diet. Now, I'm not looking to change your thinking or cause offense to your ethical constitution, but rather just trying to bring up the discussion here in terms of how extreme of a stance needs to be taken on this issue. These people are against pets and Zoos too for christ sakes!

*source: https://theconversation.edu.au/orde...l-theres-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands-4659

 

[Cheiron]

Let me address your point about vegans killing more animals.

First, the more we switch towards community supported agriculture, and vegan based agriculture, the better we'll be. Just being vegan is not the end solution.

Secondly, the study is based on Australia, which cannot be generalized to the United States, where most of our agriculture is in the form of destructive lots. People who eat meat kill more animals, because they support both the agriculture to feed the animals, and the slaughter of animals.

So I encourage you to not generalize from a single study, which is biased, location-based, and has a lot of unsupported claims (in part, based on poor and outdated theories of dieting).

 

[OrbWeaver]

What Cheiron said about PETA, minus the veganism bit. I am not, nor will I ever become a vegan or a vegetarian. I do, however, support family-farmed meat, and sustainable meat resources via hunting and fishing.

 

[booB]

So, in PETA world, nobody has pets?

 

[Cheiron]

So, in PETA world, nobody has pets?

In PETA world, we still act as guardian for the animals that require it, but we do not 'breed' dogs or cats for pets.

 

[booB]

In PETA world, we still act as guardian for the animals that require it, but we do not 'breed' dogs or cats for pets.

That's not what they're preaching here. They're suggesting that we should let orcas which have been in captivity for years fend for themselves out in the ocean.

 

[Cheiron]

That's not what they're preaching here. They're suggesting that we should let orcas which have been in captivity for years fend for themselves out in the ocean.

As for Orcas, I don't know how well they could re-adapt to the wild if released. Though, previous releases have worked.

As for Sea World, they contribute to the brutal killing of dolphin, by purchasing dolphins from these hunters. They should not breed, or capture live animals for use in entertainment. Sea World's organization still involves itself in capturing wild dolphins, and Orcas, and these animals die earlier and have more health issues than those that are in the wild. If Sea World, and other zoos (aquatic or otherwise) were rescue/rehabilitation/release facilities, I wouldn't have issues. Some of their missions are genuine, and good, but often they are a low priority and more for political purposes than for what they are primarily interested in, which is making money.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

First, the more we switch towards community supported agriculture, and vegan based agriculture, the better we'll be. Just being vegan is not the end solution.

While I'm no fan of these major corporate farms either (which is what I'm assuming you're referring to bu supporting community based agriculture) - at the end of the day, supply/demand is supply/demand. A local farmer will still need to destroy naturally occurring vegetation that will ultimately starve the animals that eat it and the predators that eat them whereas a legitimate and humane cow farmer feeds his or her livestock naturally occurring grazing plants. In other words, the reputable, humane farmer isn't destroying ecosystems. The vegan farmer could very will be.

Secondly, the study is based on Australia, which cannot be generalized to the United States, where most of our agriculture is in the form of destructive lots. People who eat meat kill more animals, because they support both the agriculture to feed the animals, and the slaughter of animals.

It's possible that due to the country differences, the % number of animals killed changes, but even if the vegetable-eater is responsible for 5x more animal deaths than a meat-eater, or even ANY animal deaths at ALL because of their diet -- it's a massive dilemma if their argument is based on the fool's errand of trying to save every living thing from suffering -- which is what PETA and the like try to do. You can't save everyone and everything, it's impossible in every sense of the word and it takes away from the much larger cause of calling for regulations against severe welfare issues against animals. Like I said, I don't know why they paint with broad strokes, rather than fine teeth.

So I encourage you to not generalize from a single study, which is biased, location-based, and has a lot of unsupported claims (in part, based on poor and outdated theories of dieting).

No offense, but an academic, peer-reviewed journal is not based on "unsupported claims" just because it presents a major dilemma... It's not "outdated" just because you disagree with it.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

.

As for Sea World, they contribute to the brutal killing of dolphin, by purchasing dolphins from these hunters. They should not breed, or capture live animals for use in entertainment. Sea World's organization still involves itself in capturing wild dolphins, and Orcas, and these animals die earlier and have more health issues than those that are in the wild. If Sea World, and other zoos (aquatic or otherwise) were rescue/rehabilitation/release facilities, I wouldn't have issues. Some of their missions are genuine, and good, but often they are a low priority and more for political purposes than for what they are primarily interested in, which is making money.

Actually, animals live much longer lives in captivity than in the wild. It's a scientific fact. The wild is a constant struggle for survival that captive animals don't have to concern themselves with (I mean, think about why our OWN lifespan as a species is constantly getting higher and higher - rather than diminishing - it's simple logic). I do agree that Sea World is not a reputable organization, but again addressing my point earlier - espousing all zoos as criminal is insane if you ask me.

Regarding pets - they are domesticated for a reason. They require our responsible companionship and cannot live in the wild. To be against the notion of breeding animals that would no doubt breed with themselves anyways and in much larger numbers than if more unchecked than already - which would be absolutely devastating to the entire planet is an extremely scary argument. You are starting to sound like PETA yourself dude.

 

[Cheiron]

Actually, animals live much longer lives in captivity than in the wild. It's a scientific fact. The wild is a constant struggle for survival that captive animals don't have to concern themselves with (I mean, think about why our OWN lifespan as a species is constantly getting higher and higher - rather than diminishing - it's simple logic). I do agree that Sea World is not a reputable organization, but again addressing my point earlier - espousing all zoos as criminal is insane if you ask me.

Regarding pets - they are domesticated for a reason. They require our responsible companionship and cannot live in the wild. To be against the notion of breeding animals that would no doubt breed with themselves anyways and in much larger numbers than if more unchecked than already - which would be absolutely devastating to the entire planet is an extremely scary argument. You are starting to sound like PETA yourself dude.

In this instance, you are wrong. While some animals are known to live longer in captivity than the wild, many animals, including Orcas and Dolphins, do not. As for that scientific study, they'd find different answers if they looked at alternative agriculture methods, and alternative diets. My ideal, is a permaculture based vegan-society. I do not think that the harming of animals for human entertainment is justified in any way. I do think that we need to reduce harm to animals, and that this is done through a move to a plant-based diet. If we do not need to kill animals to eat, then we should not do so. We should employ methods to eliminate, as far as possible, the harm done to animals as a part of agriculture.

I do not think that we need to be breeding Pomeranians, when there are thousands of dogs put to death everyday due to 'overpopulation'.

If we had a lower population, then we can start talking about moving to a wild-harvested lifestyle.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

In this instance, you are wrong. While some animals are known to live longer in captivity than the wild, many animals, including Orcas and Dolphins, do not. As for that scientific study, they'd find different answers if they looked at alternative agriculture methods, and alternative diets. My ideal, is a permaculture based vegan-society. I do not think that the harming of animals for human entertainment is justified in any way. I do think that we need to reduce harm to animals, and that this is done through a move to a plant-based diet. If we do not need to kill animals to eat, then we should not do so. We should employ methods to eliminate, as far as possible, the harm done to animals as a part of agriculture.

I do not think that we need to be breeding Pomeranians, when there are thousands of dogs put to death everyday due to 'overpopulation'.

If we had a lower population, then we can start talking about moving to a wild-harvested lifestyle.

Okay, THIS is fair enough! I disagree with some of this, but I can see the merits in your points. I will say though that reputable breeders are generally not in it for the money and actually put a huge financial and time investment into what is essentially a passion and love of dogs. Getting a well-bred quality Pomeranian from a reputable breeder means a dog that will not likely be thrown into a shelter because the owner didn't do the research previously (legit breeders have strict requirements to vet potential owners and generally charge thousands of dollars so they can recoup all the expenses necessary in raising and socializing the pup), and is a better scenario when compared to a family who adopts a dog on an impulse from even a reputable shelter whose breed and health info are generally unknown so that the dog winds up back in the shelter after a few months and the family can't care for it (this happens WAY more than you think). Not saying adopting is wrong, but I hate it when people confuse legitimate, high-reputation breeders to backdoor scumbags and puppy mills.

 

[ashaman7122]

So...you're pretty much an expert on everything now?

And you get all your news from the Daily Show?

Ugh.....

 

[AeonicSlumber]

trolololol

So cute!

 

[DuchessOfDork]

I hate PETA for one thing:

..because in an effort to be more humane toward animals, the best strategy is to make people feel ashamed of their bodies. Great message, you self absorbed assholes.

 

[dcowboys311]

I hate PETA for one thing:

..because in an effort to be more humane toward animals, the best strategy is to make people feel ashamed of their bodies. Great message, you self absorbed assholes.

To an extent I agree with you and it should come as no surprise that PETA has sunk to this level. They are like the Westboro Baptist Church of animal rights. However I disagree with the notion that people should constantly be proud/unashamed/whatever of their bodies. Being in poor health and lacking self control is nothing to brag about. There are many, many people who have medical disabilities and that is sad and understandable, but there are many, many more people whose obesity is caused by poor diet and refusal to exercise. Treating yourself like crap is nothing to accept IMO.

 

[DuchessOfDork]

There are many, many people who have medical disabilities and that is sad and understandable, but there are many, many more people whose obesity is caused by poor diet and refusal to exercise. Treating yourself like crap is nothing to accept IMO.

You're absolutely right, but that's no reason to shame people. I know plenty of skinny people who eat absolute garbage, but nobody shames them because they're not fat. Pointing fingers at fat people for being fat isn't going to make them eat better. If anything, it's going to make them even more depressed, and what do you think most people do when they're depressed? Go on a diet?

Being healthy and getting to a healthy weight isn't something you're going to promote by going around calling fat people whales. All it does is promote public shaming and bullying.

 

[TheLongshot]

To an extent I agree with you and it should come as no surprise that PETA has sunk to this level. They are like the Westboro Baptist Church of animal rights. However I disagree with the notion that people should constantly be proud/unashamed/whatever of their bodies. Being in poor health and lacking self control is nothing to brag about. There are many, many people who have medical disabilities and that is sad and understandable, but there are many, many more people whose obesity is caused by poor diet and refusal to exercise. Treating yourself like crap is nothing to accept IMO.

Course, you are assuming that people like that continue to have a poor diet and refuse to exercise. My wife has been a vegetarian since high school and tries to get exercise when she can while being a full time mom. But, she's always has been heavy, and probably always will be. She works at it, but it isn't easy to take off weight and keep it off.

BTW, combine the ad above with all the "naked" ads they do, and they'd give any normal woman a complex.

what do you think most people do when they're depressed? Go on a diet?

Part of the reason why my wife is the size that she is is because she had some serious depression issues when she was a kid.