PETA has named 5 Orca Whales as Plantiffs in a lawsuit... .. Yes, they really are THAT stupid

[Amomynous]

PETA try to even encourage Dogs and Cats owners to make their pets not to eat meat, even though it makes the animals very ill and could even kill them, so yeah so much for Animal rights right there.

Dogs, not cats.

Dogs can actually live relatively healthily without meat, it's not the best thing for their health, but when faced with one dog verses many various other animals that would be used to feed the dog, when it doesn't strictly need it, they're going to choose the many various other animals.

[Stacy]

Dogs, not cats.

Dogs can actually live relatively healthily without meat, it's not the best thing for their health, but when faced with one dog verses many various other animals that would be used to feed the dog, when it doesn't strictly need it, they're going to choose the many various other animals.

[JezMM]

Dogs are indeed omnivores like us and can live perfectly healthily without meat, though just like us they do love it all the same.

If anyone from PETA honestly said cat owners shouldn't feed them meat, that is idiocy of the highest caliber.

Edited February 15, 2012 by JezMM

[Vulpine]

I hate PETA. I hate them so much. I wish they would stop their horror already.

Eating meat is not bad, people. In fact, you can eat meat and still be friendly to animals.

[JezMM]

I hate PETA. I hate them so much. I wish they would stop their horror already.

If you think PETA are anything resembling "horror" you should visit a slaughterhouse sometime. PETA are ridiculous but "horror" is not a genre I'd relate to them. Comedy perhaps.

Eating meat is not bad, people. In fact, you can eat meat and still be friendly to some other animals.

Fix'd.

Edited February 17, 2012 by JezMM

[Aquaslash]

I saw on Yahoo the other day that this case was thrown out, and PETA was basically laughed at. Then a day or two later, they came under fire for some vegan supporting ad with a chick that was quite beat up because her suddenly vegan boyfriend basically broke her from banging her too hard.

What will they think of next?

[Solly]

I saw on Yahoo the other day that this case was thrown out, and PETA was basically laughed at. Then a day or two later, they came under fire for some vegan supporting ad with a chick that was quite beat up because her suddenly vegan boyfriend basically broke her from banging her too hard.

What will they think of next?

[Stacy]

http://www.nokillnow.com/PETAIngridNewkirkResign.htm

Just found this site don't know how true it is but this "women" Newkirk is practically a Nazi.

Animal Rights my arse she is an animal butcher herself.

[Solly]

^Just FYI I'd like to warn everyone that that link isn't for the faint of heart and contains some disturbing images.

[JezMM]

Anyone else here wearing a leather belt right now? That's made from animals.

Honestly leather actually pisses me off more than eating meat does. It's even MORE unnecessary. You can't even say belts are delicious or save lives like meat and medicine respectively. Cows are specifically bred and killed for it, it's not even "using the whole animal so nothing goes to waste!" like many people imagine.

Faux leather is actually cheaper. I cannot imagine why anyone would want to carry their money around in a wad of shiny preserved flesh.

Medicines I'm more okay with. I don't like it but it is somewhat "worth it". Cosmetics and bathroom products are obviously a complete waste of animal life and I avoid buying any which don't have a no-animal-testing gurantee these days.

Edited February 17, 2012 by JezMM

[Jeffhog]

^Just FYI I'd like to warn everyone that that link isn't for the faint of heart and contains some disturbing images.

Disturbing images? What kind of---

[Solly]

Honestly leather actually pisses me off more than eating meat does. It's even MORE unnecessary. You can't even say belts are delicious or save lives like meat and medicine respectively. Cows are specifically bred and killed for it, it's not even "using the whole animal so nothing goes to waste!" like many people imagine.

Yes, it's an ugly practice, and it is more of a luxury than a necessity, but I can absolutely guarantee you that we all enjoy products that come at the expense of animals in some way.

Faux leather is actually cheaper. I cannot imagine why anyone would want to carry their money around in a wad of shiny preserved flesh.

Faux leather isn't really the greatest. Hell, the chair I'm sitting in as I type this uses faux leather, and it's arm rests are all cracked and it's kind of irritating.

Not to mention it exists because we enjoy real leather. It perpetuates the style.

Medicines I'm more okay with. I don't like it but it is somewhat "worth it".

Somewhat worth it? We'd be totally fucked without it. If we didn't test stuff on animals, we wouldn't have vaccines for things like polio, influenza and hepatitis. We wouldn't have big procedures like heart and kidney transplants. We would be missing so many drugs and medications.

Again, I love animals, but our species comes first. If we can save millions of human lives at the expense of running tests on animals, then we can't hesitate.

[JezMM]

Yes, it's an ugly practice, and it is more of a luxury than a necessity, but I can absolutely guarantee you that we all enjoy products that come at the expense of animals in some way.

Faux leather isn't really the greatest. Hell, the chair I'm sitting in as I type this uses faux leather, and it's arm rests are all cracked and it's kind of irritating.

I know what you mean, I had the same issue with a faux-leather chair, but "kind of irritating" doesn't justify killing cows to me. D=

Not to mention it exists because we enjoy real leather. It perpetuates the style.

Agreed, but when there's so many humane alternatives I don't see the point in continuing to use the real thing out of anything other than blind nostalgia. It's not even an animal thing either - the leather industry is terribly polluting so it's bad for us too.

Somewhat worth it? We'd be totally fucked without it. If we didn't test stuff on animals, we wouldn't have vaccines for things like polio, influenza and hepatitis. We wouldn't have big procedures like heart and kidney transplants. We would be missing so many drugs and medications.

Again, I love animals, but our species comes first. If we can save millions of human lives at the expense of running tests on animals, then we can't hesitate.

I agree, but remember I see animals as at least ALMOST equals. Therefore I can only call it "somewhat" worth it. Of course I'd accept medicine and procedures developed from animal testing, but only out of pure survival instinct. Instinct is a damn hard thing to surpress, but I like to do my best.

In fact if anything allows me to feel "unequal" to animals, it's our ability to empathise - and even that line becomes blurred when you look at research into the most intelligent examples of the animal kingdom showing empathy (such as dogs who have rescued their owners with no prior training, or of course social experiments on apes).

Don't take my arguement of being equal to animals too much to heart of course, that's just my own way of seeing the world. That one isn't me preaching the truth, it's just how I feel about animals.

Of course saying "animal testing is only okay when absoloutely necessary" is all well and good, but the research is all interconnected, there's no way to know what research that harms them may be irrelevant now but will be knowledge used in saving lives later on. I'm not saying there is any way animal research will ever be able to become as 100% humane as is possible, I am merely saying I really don't like this fact and nothing will ever make me feel that much better about it.

EDIT: On the basis that this has slipped onto page 2 with no-one else speaking up against me, I totally won the thread, vegetarianism wins and you should all feel terrible. 8D

Edited February 20, 2012 by JezMM

[Tornado]

You see, this is the exact kind of thing I alluded with with regarding why I have a problem with PETA:

Experts in philosophy, conservation and animal behaviour want support for a Declaration of Rights for Cetaceans.

They believe dolphins and whales are sufficiently intelligent to justify the same ethical considerations as humans.

Linky.

This is certainly a topic that should be given some consideration and study, because human rights are generally held to be derived from human self-awareness. But now that PETA pulled that stupid "look at me" bullshit that made all the news, how many people are going to seriously think about the base reasoning behind the motion?

Edited February 21, 2012 by Gilda

[JezMM]

^ Noooooooooooooo

EDIT: On the basis that this has slipped onto page 2 with no-one else speaking up against me, I totally won the thread, vegetarianism wins and you should all feel terrible. 8D

You ruined it.

But I absoloutely agree. PETA are so busy making spectacles of themselves, REAL reasoning like that article raises completely slips under the radar and just paints all animal rights activists as being crazy extremists.

(For the record, despite all my defense, I lean more towards animal welfare than animal rights for the most part, simply because we've already established a world where animal rights is too big a step to just happen overnight).

[Stacy]

Then a day or two later, they came under fire for some vegan supporting ad with a chick that was quite beat up because her suddenly vegan boyfriend basically broke her from banging her too hard.

What will they think of next?

[JezMM]

Yeah it's dumb and pandering. Never mind all the health benefits or ethics, people go Vegan to become sex legends! Because... veganism... um... makes you really good at sex for some reason.

Well, it is a fact that vegans "taste better" down there but that's about it...

[Stacy]

Well, it is a fact that vegans "taste better" down there but that's about it...

[Solly]

EDIT: On the basis that this has slipped onto page 2 with no-one else speaking up against me, I totally won the thread, vegetarianism wins and you should all feel terrible. 8D

[Solkia]

Why won't this topic just die along with PETA?

[JezMM]

If it makes you feel any better (and it probably won't) those cows are bred for that purpose and wouldn't have even been born otherwise. Their days were already numbered.

Yeah it doesn't. I understand the sentiment but given that these cows don't really have a "life" I don't see their mere existence as anything to celebrate. I doubt I'd be that happy if someone justified my death by saying "well hey at least you got to live right?"

Seriously though, I know using animals for products isn't nice to think about-- hell, I don't like thinking about it. I love animals too. But it's not going away any time soon.

Well, yeah, no-one likes to think about it, so they choose not to. I hope this doesn't come across as offensive or anything but I percieve it as sort of self-inflicted ignorance. I'd rather think about it because I'd feel guilty not to.

Is there any reason you sound so hesitant? I mean yeah, animal testing isn't pretty, but you wouldn't be doing the animals that may or may not have died in the process of testing the drug any favors by denying it.

Hesitant as in saying I consider them ALMOST equals? Well I don't consider us completely equal because, well, hell there's a reason we became the most developed race on the planet. But I still feel it's unfair that we exploit them as a result. Would they exploit us? Sure probably! But yeah, I just don't like it. Makes me sad.

Join the club. I don't like it either, but it's something that has to be done. We'd be up shit creek without a paddle.

For sure. As said, I can only surpress my own survival instinct to a certain extent. It's easy to say animal testing is terrible, but when I really push myself to think about it, and think about how easily I'd die without it or how different my life would be, it's harder to say it and completely mean it.

I think the base reasoning behind PETA's motions isn't about wanting animals to be treated humanely. Hell, we ALL want that.

PETA on the other hand, sees absolutely no difference between humans and ANY animals and has even compared eating meat to slavery and the fucking Holocaust.

Well, again this just depends on how much you're able to empathise with animals. How much you can put yourself in their (lack of) shoes. Imagine living your life in captivity. Imagine being tightly packed into a van to be transported with no access to food or water or comfort, for hours at a time. Imagine going through a slaughterhouse and being killed.

I can, and it's what makes me feel uncomfortable enough to never go back* to eating meat. If you imagine all the animals going through the meat industry as people, it suddenly becomes very comparable to the holocaust. Living creatures going through hell against their will. Of course it varies. Here in developed countries (the UK and several European countries anyway, dunno about America), obviously animals have it much better than that, but standards for welfare could always be higher.

*(For the record, I did not start for the ethics, but as a gesture to Mollfie, who asked if I could just try it. I decided "well if I was vegetarian I'd want her to at least try it for me". As I settled into my vegetarian diet it was only later I started to learn ethics about it).

How do you define "animal rights"? If animals got rights, what would that mean? What kind of world would it be?

I'm asking out of pure curiosity.

Well, animal rights activists GENERALLY believe we have no right to use animals selfishly for our own interests at all. They should have the right to live freely, just as we do.

On the flipside, animal welfare activists (such as myself) GENERALLY believe we can have a relationship with animals in which we use them, as long as it's done respectfully and putting them through no unnecessary discomfort at all.

Why won't this topic just die along with PETA?

It is too uncomfortable a discussion for most people, but those of us still participating are still enjoying it on some level.

[Solly]

Yeah it doesn't. I understand the sentiment but given that these cows don't really have a "life" I don't see their mere existence as anything to celebrate. I doubt I'd be that happy if someone justified my death by saying "well hey at least you got to live right?"

Not what I was getting at. I'm not celibrating their lives at all. I'm saying that we aren't taking cows out of their natural habitat to do this, we're farming them. They're bred for this kind of stuff.

Well, yeah, no-one likes to think about it, so they choose not to. I hope this doesn't come across as offensive or anything but I percieve it as sort of self-inflicted ignorance. I'd rather think about it because I'd feel guilty not to.

Well I think the only people being wilfully ignorant are the ones who choose to ignore where their products are coming from. That's something everyone should know.

But choosing not to think about death and dying, when eating chicken or whatever isn't really ignorant. That's just life, man. We'd all prefer it if the chicken didn't have to die. Or if it deserved it.

I don't take offense, by the way.

Hesitant as in saying I consider them ALMOST equals? Well I don't consider us completely equal because, well, hell there's a reason we became the most developed race on the planet. But I still feel it's unfair that we exploit them as a result. Would they exploit us? Sure probably!

I meant "is there any reason you sound so hesitant about accepting drugs that were tested on animals"? I mean animals are going to be tested on one way or the other.

But yeah, I just don't like it. Makes me sad.

:c

Well, again this just depends on how much you're able to empathise with animals. How much you can put yourself in their (lack of) shoes. Imagine living your life in captivity. Imagine being tightly packed into a van to be transported with no access to food or water or comfort, for hours at a time. Imagine going through a slaughterhouse and being killed.

I think I'm able to empathize with animals quite a bit. And I agree, being raised for slaughter isn't the nicest idea, but I have two problems with this.

1: Not all animals are really mistreated during their lives in captivity. I mean, until the slaughter part.

2: It's good to be able to empathize, but you really don't want to step too far and anthropomorphize them.

I can, and it's what makes me feel uncomfortable enough to never go back* to eating meat. If you imagine all the animals going through the meat industry as people, it suddenly becomes very comparable to the holocaust.

And now we are anthropomorphizing them. Are you totally sure you want to make that comparison? You're going to compare one of the most disgusting and heinous events in human history-- a genocide-- to killing animals for food? Hell, I've met holocaust survivors who would be sickened by that.

Really, I get that slaughterhouses suck and all, and that animals suffer in them, but that is such small potatoes compared to the holocaust. Animals and humans really ARE different. They don't have our intelligence or awareness. That doesn't mean we should be doing whatever we want with them, but we can't be put in their shoes. the same way they can't be put in ours.

*(For the record, I did not start for the ethics, but as a gesture to Mollfie, who asked if I could just try it. I decided "well if I was vegetarian I'd want her to at least try it for me". As I settled into my vegetarian diet it was only later I started to learn ethics about it).

I'm not bothered by moral vegetarians. Hell, my mother's one. People are free to do what they want.

Well, animal rights activists GENERALLY believe we have no right to use animals selfishly for our own interests at all. They should have the right to live freely, just as we do.

On the flipside, animal welfare activists (such as myself) GENERALLY believe we can have a relationship with animals in which we use them, as long as it's done respectfully and putting them through no unnecessary discomfort at all.

No offense, but both of those sound really naive, unless you've got a really flexible definition for "unecessary discomfort."

[JezMM]

Not what I was getting at. I'm not celibrating their lives at all. I'm saying that we aren't taking cows out of their natural habitat to do this, we're farming them. They're bred for this kind of stuff.

It's still not a happy life though. It doesn't make them any less sentient than those who are lucky enough to be born to live free in the wild.

I meant "is there any reason you sound so hesitant about accepting drugs that were tested on animals"? I mean animals are going to be tested on one way or the other.

They are, because that's the world we live in. It's an aspect of reality I just don't like to have to accept. But I do.

1: Not all animals are really mistreated during their lives in captivity. I mean, until the slaughter part.

This is true, and should be the universal standard for the meat industry. It unfortunately, is not. Veal for example, has to be mistreated as part of the process to make it be what veal is. Poultry is still not given the same basic rights of comfort that mammal meat animals get.

2: It's good to be able to empathize, but you really don't want to step too far and anthropomorphize them.

And now we are anthropomorphizing them. Are you totally sure you want to make that comparison? You're going to compare one of the most disgusting and heinous events in human history-- a genocide-- to killing animals for food? Hell, I've met holocaust survivors who would be sickened by that.

Really, I get that slaughterhouses suck and all, and that animals suffer in them, but that is such small potatoes compared to the holocaust. Animals and humans really ARE different. They don't have our intelligence or awareness. That doesn't mean we should be doing whatever we want with them, but we can't be put in their shoes. the same way they can't be put in ours.

Yes, I'm comfortable with making the comparison, but it's just that, a comparison. They are in no way the same, but if you empathise with animals to that extent you can feel sad about it in the same way.

Intelligence and awareness doesn't come into it for me. Would someone with an IQ of 50 feel less scared and sad when faced with pain and death than someone with an IQ of 250? So why would an animal feel any less scared and sad? That's just natural instinct. We all want to live.

No offense, but both of those sound really naive, unless you've got a really flexible definition for "unecessary discomfort."

They probably are quite naive, by the standards of the rest of the world. Not to go too angsty, but often vegetarianism can feel like a very hopeless and lonely experience because of widespread opinions like this.

As for unnecessary comfort... well, yeah I doubt it would be anything that the meat industry could realistically do. A foolproof method of anesthetising ALL animals before slaughter. Natural free range envioronments for all animals. No overcrowded transportation of animals for long periods without breaks. Just to name a few. Do these seem reasonable? Even if they are, would people be willing to pay a little more for, or eat a little less of, their meat so these could become realities?

[Solly]

It's still not a happy life though. It doesn't make them any less sentient than those who are lucky enough to be born to live free in the wild.

Didn't say it was.

Yes, I'm comfortable with making the comparison, but it's just that, a comparison. They are in no way the same, but if you empathise with animals to that extent you can feel sad about it in the same way.

Intelligence and awareness doesn't come into it for me. Would someone with an IQ of 50 feel less scared and sad when faced with pain and death than someone with an IQ of 250? So why would an animal feel any less scared and sad? That's just natural instinct. We all want to live.

...And now it feels like you're comparing the mentally-challenged to animals.

And the point I was getting at is that an animal wouldn't know what's happening the way a human would. Often they probably aren't even aware they're being killed, and it's over before they know it.

Yes, animals are capable of suffering, and they have emotions, they aren't going to suffer the way a human would. If I can compare it to anything in the animal kingdom, would you feel worse for a rat getting killed, or a chimp?

Like you said, humans are the most developed species on the planet. That's why I feel like we can't equate our suffering to their suffering. Humans life is just more important and precious. I love animals and don't want them to suffer, but it's just not the same.

They probably are quite naive, by the standards of the rest of the world. Not to go too angsty, but often vegetarianism can feel like a very hopeless and lonely experience because of widespread opinions like this.

I know what it's like to have an outrageously unpopular viewpoint, if it makes you feel any better.

As for unnecessary comfort... well, yeah I doubt it would be anything that the meat industry could realistically do. A foolproof method of anesthetising ALL animals before slaughter. Natural free range envioronments for all animals. No overcrowded transportation of animals for long periods without breaks. Just to name a few. Do these seem reasonable? Even if they are, would people be willing to pay a little more for, or eat a little less of, their meat so these could become realities?

Anesthesia to drug every animal is expensive, land for free range environments is limited, and forcing breaks on drivers who are transporting animals seems really difficult. You can't exactly let a bunch of cows out of the cargo truck wherever you want so they can stretch their legs...

But I get what you're saying, and I'm not against these ideas, but you make it sound easier than it is.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Solly

[JezMM]

...And now it feels like you're comparing the mentally-challenged to animals.

Well... okay I'll play devil's advocate for a second - why not? If being less intelligent and less aware is justification for treating them with less emotion, care, respect, etc... then how do they differ from a mentally-challenged person? I hope I'm not being too ridiculous here in combining touchy-subjects but... No, seriously. Remember I really respect animals so this is in no way a dig at mentally-challenged people.

And the point I was getting at is that an animal wouldn't know what's happening the way a human would. Often they probably aren't even aware they're being killed, and it's over before they know it.

I hope so, but we just can't be sure how closely they experience the world to how we do. I'd rather be too careful.

Yes, animals are capable of suffering, and they have emotions, they aren't going to suffer the way a human would. If I can compare it to anything in the animal kingdom, would you feel worse for a rat getting killed, or a chimp?

To be honest I'm not quite sure what you're implying from this (I don't mean that in a mean way, just in an honest to god, I'm not sure way!). I get the impression you want me to answer chimp, but ironically I'd actually feel worse about the rat. I have pet rats so I sympathise with them more lol. I actually find Chimps a little unappealing. They're too human-like, I find it a little unnerving somehow (though fascinating all the same). I realise you probably didn't mean me to answer it so literally but may as well.

Wait! I get your point now. You're suggesting the chimp would be more traumatic because it's closer to us in biology. Well in that sense I should add that I still feel both would feel enough pain and fear for neither to be more "okay" than the other. I would find it just as upsetting to watch a chimp be killed as I would a rat (though would ultimately probably be more traumatised by the rat because I have friends who are rats).

Like you said, humans are the most developed species on the planet. That's why I feel like we can't equate our suffering to their suffering. Humans life is just more important and precious.

I respectfully disagree. No other way to say it really. That is to say...

I love animals and don't want them to suffer, but it's just not the same.

You love animals - but you love humans more. And that's fine. I, personally love both equally. If I can love a pet like I can a human family member, then I feel all animals have the potential to be loved like that. Granted not all species are capable of a mutual relationship like most pets have I'm sure, but still.

Anesthesia to drug every animal is expensive, land for free range environments is limited, and forcing breaks on drivers who are transporting animals seems really difficult. You can't exactly let a bunch of cows out of the cargo truck wherever you want so they can stretch their legs...

But I get what you're saying, and I'm not against these ideas, but you make it sound easier than it is.

It is pretty easy... if we didn't eat meat, we wouldn't have to do any of it. That's kind of jumping a whole load of steps further than what we were arguing though (which was largely a "meeting meat-eaters halfway by just arguing for animal welfare" ordeal) so I'm not actually raising that as an arguement to be refuted against of course, I'm just sayin'.