NationStates Jolt Archive

Protest sex dolls seized in Philippines - rights group (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22976863-23109,00.html)
Customs officials in the Philippines have seized inflatable sex dolls meant to be used for an international campaign against animal cruelty, an animal rights group said.

I can't seem to find a local news source for this...

Anyways, PETA is known for its creative/weird/outrageous campaigns. What do you think of their tactics? What do you think of the organization itself?

Vegetarian is the bestest. :D

What do you think of their tactics?
They rely on creating emotions using unrelated stimuli and associating it with their 'cause' by a sort of pavlovian conditioning.

What do you think of the organization itself?
Scum.

Between 1998 and 2005 hey killed over 14,000 animals at their Virginia HQ alone. They've got a $9,370 walk-in freezer for the storage of bodies at that sprawling non-profit castle.

They fight against animal testing even though every major medical treatment developed during the last century involved animal research. After he firebombed a university medical research facility they gave Rodney Coronado 40k for legal defense and another 25k as a gift/payment for the deed.

On June 15, 2005 Andrew Cook and Adria Hinkle, two PETA employees, were arrested because they tossed 70 animal carcasses in dumpsters. In their van was found numerous small cages and a tackle box full of various poisons used to kill small animals picked up from area shelters. Police also found 13 dead in their van when they were arrested and charged with animal cruelty. Oh the irony!

I eat mostly any kind of meat except fish. I'll eat tuna but most other fish I don't like so much.

I know a girl who got swiped up by PETA as a child for all the crap she spouts she still ends up doing stupid things like feeding cats who randomly turn up

I find this sums up PETA all to well

I eat mostly any kind of meat except fish. I'll eat tuna but most other fish I don't like so much.

fish cake?

Between 1998 and 2005 hey killed over 14,000 animals at their Virginia HQ alone. They've got a $9,370 walk-in freezer for the storage of bodies at that sprawling non-profit castle.

yeah, and?

They fight against animal testing even though every major medical treatment developed during the last century involved animal research.

yeah, and?

After he firebombed a university medical research facility they gave Rodney Coronado 40k for legal defense and another 25k as a gift/payment for the deed.

yeah, and?

On June 15, 2005 Andrew Cook and Adria Hinkle, two PETA employees, were arrested because they tossed 70 animal carcasses in dumpsters. In their van was found numerous small cages and a tackle box full of various poisons used to kill small animals picked up from area shelters. Police also found 13 dead in their van when they were arrested and charged with animal cruelty. Oh the irony!

in addition to them explicitly acting outside of peta's policies, you are aware that the original charges were dropped, other lesser charges were put up instead, and they were acquitted of everything except for the improper disposal of euthanized animals, right?

Scum.

QF-freaking-T.

Also, it has been suggested that we should eat meat all the more so they'd still have to pose nekkid. :D I have a pic but I hesitate to share. :p

I picked Vegetarian because I assume by Vegetarian you meant vegetarians.

I picked Vegetarian because I assume by Vegetarian you meant vegetarians.
But but... what else could he have in mind? :eek:

I picked Vegetarian because I assume by Vegetarian you meant vegetarians.
Yes, vegetarian meat are yummy. :D

They rely on creating emotions using unrelated stimuli and associating it with their 'cause' by a sort of pavlovian conditioning.


Scum.

I agree 100%

The 'best' thing I ever saw about PETA is there is a river in New York state called the Fishkill, they demonstrated and protested, saying that the name promoted the killing of fish.

The 'best' thing I ever saw about PETA is there is a river in New York state called the Fishkill, they demonstrated and protested, saying that the name promoted the killing of fish.

they threw a stink around here because we have a town called slaughterville, guess what? it's where a bunch of slaughter houses are!

I'm not a big fan of PETA, mainly because they are hypocrites and a bunch of asshole who relies of emotional response instead of logical ones.

I'm a big supporter of the ASPCA though since they really do care about animals and there's a shelter in my area that I support since it's a no kill shelter.

yeah, and?
They sat they're about treating animals ethically and totally against killing animals in shelters yet they kill over 3/4 of all the animals they take in, sometimes going to shelters to collect animals just to kill them once out of sight and earshot of the folks that run the humane society center they get their supply of kicks from. What's that word that describes someone who says one thing and does another?

yeah, and?
Without vivisection of dogs every diabetic in America and around the world would be dead. Every major medical advancement over the last 100+ years has involved animals being cut up, infected, poisoned, or given new meds. Without animal testing somewhere around 80-90% of the information in modern medical textbooks would be missing.

yeah, and?
He firebombed a medical research facility. It wasn't even some drug company lab, it belonged to Michigan U. Over 3 decades of data was lost. Millions in equipment and building was damaged beyond usefullness and repair or completely destroyed. They were trying to cure terminal diseases and he blew it all up! How does that not make you a fucking monster?

PETA is directly responsible for the waste of tonnes of Kangaroo skins and parts every year.

These animals are killed anyway. They have to be, to keep the populations under control. But because of a PETA influenced ban on Kangaroo products entering the US (they actually got one of the most numerous species on Earth put on the endangered species list!), large amounts of pelt and other parts simply go to waste.

PETA is made up solely of liars and fools.

PETA has been shown to contain naive fools as well as deceivingly shrewd hypocrites. There might be people who care about animals in there, but the leadership certainly hasn't proven that it does.

I prefer to trust people on their own merits however, so being a member of PETA doesn't necessarily make you a bumbling fool or severely ethically impaired individual - it just heightens your chances.

I prefer people who actually support animal rights.

PETA is directly responsible for the waste of tonnes of Kangaroo skins and parts every year.

These animals are killed anyway. They have to be, to keep the populations under control. But because of a PETA influenced ban on Kangaroo products entering the US (they actually got one of the most numerous species on Earth put on the endangered species list!), large amounts of pelt and other parts simply go to waste.

PETA is made up solely of liars and fools.
Why is Earth emphasized instead of most numerous? Are they not the most numerous species on other planets?

I would say that animals should be treated according to their intelligence. So animal rights campaigns for apes, whales or elephants make sense. Cows and chickens...not so much.

So I don't think much of PETA.

As for the poll, I'll eat pretty much all meat. I don't like most fish, and I'm not a fan of wild deer and the like, but I ticked all the meats plus other: emu, ostrich and kangaroo.

Why is Earth emphasized instead of most numerous? Are they not the most numerous species on other planets?

Presumably, it would be a little odd if they were.

Too bad that we have a certain aversion to rat meat and pelts, otherwise we could make a real industry out of rats.

... on Australia's kangaroo meat and pelt ban:

However, scientific evidence suggests that the average sheep has up to 5 times as much grazing pressure as the average kangaroo, and that replacing sheep farming with kangaroo harvesting can significantly reduce the total grazing pressure on rangelands.

Mmmm, steak.

People
Eating
Tasty
Animals

Yep, I belong to PETA.:D

People
Eating
Tasty
Animals

Yep, I belong to PETA.:D

QFT and +1.

:D

Cited from the article:
"KFC Blows"
Wow...
Really great campain tactics here! Our current Presidental canadites could learn a thing or two from them!
*sarcasm*

... on Australia's kangaroo meat and pelt ban:

Mmmm, steak.

I didn't know kangaroos had wool! :eek:

I'm a vegetarian myself and I don't support hurting animals when there are alternatives. I'm not sure what to think about PETA, if i hear something about them it's often not very objective, so it's hard to judge them. I do think it's stupid to appeal to emotions like they do. There must be better reasons not to harm animals than "they're cute".
What I don't understand is why they weren't allowed to demonstrate. They weren't hurting anybody.


Without vivisection of dogs every diabetic in America and around the world would be dead. Every major medical advancement over the last 100+ years has involved animals being cut up, infected, poisoned, or given new meds. Without animal testing somewhere around 80-90% of the information in modern medical textbooks would be missing.


Do you have sources for this?
A few days ago I read that only about 3% of the increase in life span of the previous 200 years were due to new medicaments etc, the other 97% were due to improvements in hygiene. It also said that about 75% of all tests that happen on animals are never published (so they're pretty much useless). And a large part of the tests are totally irrelevant to humans. (I read this in a book by P. Singer, I think it was "animal liberation" but it was in a compilation of his work so it could be from something else too. I also have to admit that these are of the top of my head so they could be wrong, but I doubt it. Very interesting book by the way.)
Despite this I'm not really against research using animals, but maybe we should have stricter laws and only use animals for the most important research (research for new treatments of important diseases for instance) and not for research in cosmetics, if there are cosmetics that weren't tested on animals I don't really see a reason to test any cosmetics on animals. I also think we should try to give the testing animals the most humane treatment possible.


I would say that animals should be treated according to their intelligence. So animal rights campaigns for apes, whales or elephants make sense. Cows and chickens...not so much.

What about for instance babies, or mentally retarded people, who are about as intelligent as cows or sometimes chickens?

How come dog isn't on the menu? There's no ethical reason to consider dogs any less a legitimate food stuff then pigs, cows, chickens, goats... whatever. Barbecue chen chops for all.

They sat they're about treating animals ethically and totally against killing animals in shelters yet they kill over 3/4 of all the animals they take in, sometimes going to shelters to collect animals just to kill them once out of sight and earshot of the folks that run the humane society center they get their supply of kicks from. What's that word that describes someone who says one thing and does another?

http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=39
Because of the high number of unwanted companion animals and the lack of good homes, sometimes the most humane thing that a shelter worker can do is give an animal a peaceful release from a world in which dogs and cats are often considered “surplus” and unwanted. PETA, The American Veterinary Medical Association, and The Humane Society of the United States concur that an intravenous injection of sodium pentobarbital administered by a trained professional is the kindest, most compassionate method of euthanizing animals. The American Humane Association considers this to be the only acceptable method of euthanasia for cats and dogs in animal shelters.

according to peta they support euthanizing, and take animals in from places that don't practice what they consider humane methods. the fact that they then subsequently euthanize those animals themselves is neither here nor there. try again?

Without vivisection of dogs every diabetic in America and around the world would be dead. Every major medical advancement over the last 100+ years has involved animals being cut up, infected, poisoned, or given new meds. Without animal testing somewhere around 80-90% of the information in modern medical textbooks would be missing.

so? imagine a world in which we had made all of our major medical advances by performing experiments on, oh, let's say jews and black people, without their consent. would the fact of those advancements justify the means by which they were made?

He firebombed a medical research facility. It wasn't even some drug company lab, it belonged to Michigan U. Over 3 decades of data was lost. Millions in equipment and building was damaged beyond usefullness and repair or completely destroyed. They were trying to cure terminal diseases and he blew it all up! How does that not make you a fucking monster?

because if they are right in their ethical arguments, in some cases blowing shit up is the right thing to do. i know this is complicated, but there are actual arguments underpinning the animal liberation/animal rights movement. if you wish to oppose the movement, you must address the arguments.

People
Eating
Tasty
Animals

Yep, I belong to PETA.:D

Same here.

http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=39

Oh look a "fact" sheet from PETA themselves, I can feel the dark side of the force emanating from my computer screen.

according to peta they support euthanizing, and take animals in from places that don't practice what they consider humane methods. the fact that they then subsequently euthanize those animals themselves is neither here nor there. try again?
Read "Only PETA knows what is best for animals, even if that means euthanizing animals after adopting them from 'no kill' shelters."

so? imagine a world in which we had made all of our major medical advances by performing experiments on, oh, let's say jews and black people, without their consent. would the fact of those advancements justify the means by which they were made?
So are you saying Jews and black people are equivalent to animals? You racist son of a bitch.

because if they are right in their ethical arguments, in some cases blowing shit up is the right thing to do.
Sure, if you are blowing up bombs so they don't explode and kill people. Or blowing up buildings so that they implode and don't hurt anyone. But blowing up medical labs is stupid, wrong, and dangerous. Besides the fact that it is destroying years of medical research and progress, it could possibly be spreading dangerous diseases that wern't destroyed in the blast.

i know this is complicated, but there are actual arguments underpinning the animal liberation/animal rights movement.
Arguments made by intellectual midgets.

Oh look a "fact" sheet from PETA themselves, I can feel the dark side of the force emanating from my computer screen.


Read "Only PETA knows what is best for animals, even if that means euthanizing animals after adopting them from 'no kill' shelters."


So are you saying Jews and black people are equivalent to animals? You racist son of a bitch.


Sure, if you are blowing up bombs so they don't explode and kill people. Or blowing up buildings so that they implode and don't hurt anyone. But blowing up medical labs is stupid, wrong, and dangerous. Besides the fact that it is destroying years of medical research and progress, it could possibly be spreading dangerous diseases that wern't destroyed in the blast.


Arguments made by intellectual midgets.
:eek: win.

Oh look a "fact" sheet from PETA themselves, I can feel the dark side of the force emanating from my computer screen.


Read "Only PETA knows what is best for animals, even if that means euthanizing animals after adopting them from 'no kill' shelters."


So are you saying Jews and black people are equivalent to animals? You racist son of a bitch.


Sure, if you are blowing up bombs so they don't explode and kill people. Or blowing up buildings so that they implode and don't hurt anyone. But blowing up medical labs is stupid, wrong, and dangerous. Besides the fact that it is destroying years of medical research and progress, it could possibly be spreading dangerous diseases that wern't destroyed in the blast.


Arguments made by intellectual midgets.

We have a winner!

*bombards TPH with billions of fresh, homemade cookies of his choice*

I don't mind vegetarians and vegans and don't mind arguing with them and coming to terms with them but PETA seems to always be batshit crazy. And that is what I think about that.

Oh look a "fact" sheet from PETA themselves, I can feel the dark side of the force emanating from my computer screen.

when the claim is that peta opposes euthansia, what sort of counter evidence would you suggest other than peta's own words saying the exact fucking opposite?

So are you saying Jews and black people are equivalent to animals? You racist son of a bitch.

no, just using an example of two groups that actually were used for medical experimentation which is nearly uniformly considered unjust to show that the fact that medical advances were made in a certain way does not automatically justify those means. these are really simple counterarguments that should be obvious to anyone. i know peta gets people all riled up, but honestly, that's no excuse for engaging in outright stupidity.

Sure, if you are blowing up bombs so they don't explode and kill people. Or blowing up buildings so that they implode and don't hurt anyone. But blowing up medical labs is stupid, wrong, and dangerous.

not always.

Besides the fact that it is destroying years of medical research and progress, it could possibly be spreading dangerous diseases that wern't destroyed in the blast.

a possibly valid point, if it were the case that the lab contained such things and they in fact wouldn't be destroyed in the blast. was this the case?

Arguments made by intellectual midgets.

yes, that's a reasonable assessment of peter singer - especially coming straight from what you posted above...

I don't mind vegetarians and vegans and don't mind arguing with them and coming to terms with them but PETA seems to always be batshit crazy. And that is what I think about that.

yeah. though you gotta admit, they've been remarkably effective at getting things done. which makes me think that all the batshit crazy is just part of the shtick.

me, i much prefer the ELF.

yeah. though you gotta admit, they've been remarkably effective at getting things done. which makes me think that all the batshit crazy is just part of the shtick.

me, i much prefer the ELF.

So you approve of making anyone who is an environmentalist appear to be a psychotic?

So you approve of making anyone who is an environmentalist appear to be a psychotic?

no, i approve of direct action when direct action is needed

Since I voted Other I am obliged to specify.

I eat reptiles, insects, soil and dumbfuck posters on NSG.

I do NOT eat "vegetarian" ... and if you don't eat VEGETABLES, you dumbfuck thread-starter and sucky poll peddler, then you will die a miserable, young and well-deserved death, with not even a pretty corpse to show for it.

Good day to you.

Ostrich meat is the best meat :D

no, i approve of direct action when direct action is needed

So you tacitly endorse and promote domestic terrorism then. Brilliant.

Venison is the best meat :D

Fixed.

*is on break from dressing a deer*

*is on break from dressing a deer*

You mean "undressing."

Sicko.

You mean "undressing."

Sicko.

No, that was earlier. You'd be amazed how much whiskey it takes to get a deer drunk.

Wait... what were we talking about?

So you tacitly endorse and promote domestic terrorism then. Brilliant.

in so far as direct action is 'terrorism', then sure, because 'terrorism' then isn't a universal bad thing, and is frequently the morally right course of action - it would often be a moral failing to refrain from committing 'terrorism'. me, i like to use the word terrorism in a meaningful manner. but i know others like to use it to mean 'stuff i don't like', and i suppose that's ok too. the problem comes in trying to use it both ways - you want it to mean both the legitimately terrorizing and wrong "use of violence against civilians as a means to coerce other people (governments, organizations, whatever)" and "actions i disapprove of like sabotage against certain targets". that's the only way your criticism can have any force at all, and it's fundamentally dishonest.

in so far as direct action is 'terrorism', then sure, because 'terrorism' then isn't a universal bad thing, and is frequently the morally right course of action - it would often be a moral failing to refrain from committing 'terrorism'.

Yah, nope, sorry. Terrorism; blowing up buildings and killing people. You wanna fight for justice, use the legal system. Anybody who takes the law into their own hands gets no sympathy from me, legitimate cause or no.

in so far as direct action is 'terrorism', then sure, because 'terrorism' then isn't a universal bad thing, and is frequently the morally right course of action - it would often be a moral failing to refrain from committing 'terrorism'. me, i like to use the word terrorism in a meaningful manner. but i know others like to use it to mean 'stuff i don't like', and i suppose that's ok too. the problem comes in trying to use it both ways - you want it to mean both the legitimately terrorizing and wrong "use of violence against civilians as a means to coerce other people (governments, organizations, whatever)" and "actions i disapprove of like sabotage against certain targets". that's the only way your criticism can have any force at all, and it's fundamentally dishonest.

It may just be me, but I've always seen using terror to force people to do what you want and to come into your line of thinking as...well, not morally right, to say the least.

Also, I agree with the point above, and I say this on my local paper's website all the time - you take the law into your own hands, don't moan when it all comes crashing down on top of you. In some cases, this may be taken literally.

So are you saying Jews and black people are equivalent to animals? You racist son of a bitch.

Jews and blacks are animals- so are whites, Christians and everyone else. The 'logic' used by racists is the same logic that says humans are superiour to nonhumans. If it's wrong to discriminate because of race then you'd think it'd be wrong to discriminate because of species.

Jews and blacks are animals- so are whites, Christians and everyone else. The 'logic' used by racists is the same logic that says humans are superiour to nonhumans. If it's wrong to discriminate because of race then you'd think it'd be wrong to discriminate because of species.

We've been over this; equal rights for animals isn't feasible. They don't think, they work on instinct.

Jews and blacks are animals- so are whites, Christians and everyone else. The 'logic' used by racists is the same logic that says humans are superiour to nonhumans. If it's wrong to discriminate because of race then you'd think it'd be wrong to discriminate because of species.

Not really. Jews and blacks are as intelligent as any other human - cows, not. Differentiating between race and differentiating between species, I believe, work on different criteria.

I eat reptiles, insects, soil and dumbfuck posters on NSG.

I do NOT eat "vegetarian" ... and if you don't eat VEGETABLES, you dumbfuck thread-starter and sucky poll peddler...
Then you eat me... I tell you now, I'm not yummy, unless you put chocolate sauce. :D

...then you will die a miserable, young and well-deserved death, with not even a pretty corpse to show for it.
Thanks, I fully intend to die early. ;)

Not really. Jews and blacks are as intelligent as any other human - cows, not. Differentiating between race and differentiating between species, I believe, work on different criteria

Where do you draw the line at who is intelegent enough to have rights? Why not exstend it to includet te more intellegent animals like apes and dolphins, or restrict it to only include the most intelegent humans? I'm not saying we should treat nonhumans the same as us, but I think that all sentient beings should have the right not to be caused harm.

Not really. Jews and blacks are as intelligent as any other human - cows, not. Differentiating between race and differentiating between species, I believe, work on different criteria.

If a low intelligence is enough to be kept in conditions where it's impossible to live a good life, what if it could be proved that a certain race was more intelligent than another? Would it then be morally justified to discriminate against the other races?
Or what if we started to discriminate against people with an IQ lower than for instance 100? I don't think that would be moral. What if we started eating mentally retarded people who are as intelligent or maybe even less than cows?
I think most of us would agree intelligence isn't a good criterion to decide who gets what rights.

We've been over this; equal rights for animals isn't feasible. They don't think, they work on instinct.

I don't think anybody wants to give them equal rights. Actually most just want animals to be able to live a good life, like we would want other people to live good lives. That would mean that they have access to the things they would want: good food and water, open space/air/sunlight, the absence of pain and some other animals to have social contact with.
I don't think animals would want to vote, or want an education, so there's no need to give them rights to these.
Humans on the other hand, in order to live a good life, do need the right to vote, education etc, so it would be wrong to withhold these things from them.

no, i approve of direct action when direct action is needed

I stand by my assessment then, because that's all that groups like ELF really manage to do

Where do you draw the line at who is intelegent enough to have rights? Why not exstend it to includet te more intellegent animals like apes and dolphins, or restrict it to only include the most intelegent humans? I'm not saying we should treat nonhumans the same as us, but I think that all sentient beings should have the right not to be caused harm.

Intellegence isn't going to be the only criteria. From my point of view, it appears to be those niggly bits in the genes that say "you're human - and you're not".

Then you eat me... I tell you now, I'm not yummy, unless you put chocolate sauce. :D

*gets chocolate sauce and starts stalking Brutland*

*gets chocolate sauce and starts stalking Brutland*
HEY! What are you doing to my other half?
-- Norden

HEY! What are you doing to my other half?
-- Norden

*shh! quiet, it'll hear you*

Terrorism; blowing up buildings and killing people.

and therefore all war is terrorism? it can work as a definition, but then runs into a slight problem. if some wars are just, some 'terrorism' is just. and therefore calling something 'terrorism' doesn't demonstrate it's wrongness. as i said, i prefer to reserve the term terrorism for things that are actually wrong.

*shh! quiet, it'll hear you*
Will you share the food?
-- Norden

We've been over this; equal rights for animals isn't feasible. They don't think, they work on instinct.

clearly you need to go over it again, since neither of your sentences are based on true premises. nobody of any importance has ever called for equal rights for all animals. and the idea that 'animals' and humans can be distinguished by thinking vs instinct is so wrong one wonders if you have ever even seen a non-human animal.

Will you share the food?
-- Norden

Sure

free Brutland jerky to any who help with the hunt!

It may just be me, but I've always seen using terror to force people to do what you want and to come into your line of thinking as...well, not morally right, to say the least.

well, that would depend on the terror and the wrong those others are committing, wouldn't it? i mean, clearly it is right and good in at least some circumstances to put someone in fear of their life (say, by putting a gun to their head) to stop them from killing someone else.

and therefore all war is terrorism? it can work as a definition, but then runs into a slight problem. if some wars are just, some 'terrorism' is just. and therefore calling something 'terrorism' doesn't demonstrate it's wrongness. as i said, i prefer to reserve the term terrorism for things that are actually wrong.

Dude, if it comes to war, it means one country is terrorising another.

clearly you need to go over it again, since neither of your sentences are based on true premises. nobody of any importance has ever called for equal rights for all animals.

Oh yes they have. OH, YES, THEY HAVE.

and the idea that 'animals' and humans can be distinguished by thinking vs instinct is so wrong one wonders if you have ever even seen a non-human animal.

Sorry, but animals don't logically think like humans. Not the vast majority of animals, anyway. They live based on instinct.

Intellegence isn't going to be the only criteria. From my point of view, it appears to be those niggly bits in the genes that say "you're human - and you're not".

and your argument that humanness is the defining feature of moral relevance is...? suppose we encounter an alien lifeform - is it morally permissible to kill it for no reason?

<SNIP> as i said, i prefer to reserve the term terrorism for things that are actually wrong.

like killing people simply because they're doing something which you personally don't approve of?

well, that would depend on the terror and the wrong those others are committing, wouldn't it? i mean, clearly it is right and good in at least some circumstances to put someone in fear of their life (say, by putting a gun to their head) to stop them from killing someone else.

That's true. But then, blowing up a medical research laboratory is, in my eyes, morally wrong - trying to bring people round to freeing all the pretty aminals by preventing research that could save your, and many other lives is, in my eyes, horrifically stupid.

Dude, if it comes to war, it means one country is terrorising another.

but not both? even when the other side retaliates?

and even so, how does that address the fact that some wars, and therefore some acts of 'terrorism', are right and just and good? i already said that the war=terrorism definition a fine way to use the term, but it clearly follows that that means you cannot use calling something 'terrorism' as an argument against it.

and your argument that humanness is the defining feature of moral relevance is...? suppose we encounter an alien lifeform - is it morally permissible to kill it for no reason?

But we don't kill animals for no reason...so isn't that slightly redundant?

Oh yes they have. OH, YES, THEY HAVE.

got names, publications, links, something?

Sorry, but animals don't logically think like humans. Not the vast majority of animals, anyway. They live based on instinct.

sure, but nobody really thinks all that much about insect rights. however, the fact that as a general point mammals don't live based solely on instinct utterly destroys your proposed distinction. perhaps you wanted to make a different one?

That's true. But then, blowing up a medical research laboratory is, in my eyes, morally wrong - trying to bring people round to freeing all the pretty aminals by preventing research that could save your, and many other lives is, in my eyes, horrifically stupid.

sure, but something being wrong and stupid is not necessarily terrorism. and again, if their ethical arguments are right, then your moral assessment is wrong.

like killing people simply because they're doing something which you personally don't approve of?

and where have i approved of killing people?

<SNIP>
and where have i approved of killing people?

You approve of blowing up research facilities, spiking trees - these have resulted in deaths.
I'm assuming that this is the case since you said you supported ELF, which has done these things.

But we don't kill animals for no reason...so isn't that slightly redundant?

if they were not worthy of moral consideration, then there would be nothing wrong with killing them for the hell of it.

sure, but something being wrong and stupid is not necessarily terrorism. and again, if their ethical arguments are right, then your moral assessment is wrong.

But it was intended to terrorise people, wasn't it? And that is, after all, the intention of terrorism - to terrorise?

Basically, PETA are full of whiney geeks, who never actually help anything in anyway.

if they were not worthy of moral consideration, then there would be nothing wrong with killing them for the hell of it.

But then, I've already stated that there is probably more than one criterion for human rights, have I not? My opinion is that it was mainly on intelligence and genetic sequence - my opinion is probably wrong.

You approve of blowing up research facilities, spiking trees - these have resulted in deaths.
I'm assuming that this is the case since you said you supported ELF, which has done these things.

resulting in deaths and killing people are not the same thing. nobody has died in any ELF action, and ELF actions are specifically designed to keep it that way.

as an aside, tree spiking can only harm people through gross negligence on the part of either the spikers (if they don't tell anybody), or the logging company that sends people out to cut shit despite being made aware of the spiking. after all, the point of spiking is to prevent the logging, not to damage the saws.

But it was intended to terrorise people, wasn't it? And that is, after all, the intention of terrorism - to terrorise?

but the point specifically isn't to terrorize people, but to directly stop something from occuring. and even if it was intended to terrorize people, the terror wouldn't be indiscriminate and aimed at third parties - which is a key aspect in making real terrorism what it is.

resulting in deaths and killing people are not the same thing. nobody has died in any ELF action, and ELF actions are specifically designed to keep it that way.
Yes it is
as an aside, tree spiking can only harm people through gross negligence on the part of either the spikers (if they don't tell anybody), or the logging company that sends people out to cut shit despite being made aware of the spiking. after all, the point of spiking is to prevent the logging, not to damage the saws.
ELF hasn't always informed people of the fact that they've done so

But then, I've already stated that there is probably more than one criterion for human rights, have I not? My opinion is that it was mainly on intelligence and genetic sequence - my opinion is probably wrong.

well, let's see if it is by testing it out. intelligence alone is out, since we actually do and should provide more care and moral consideration to those who have significantly lower intelligences - no dangerous medical experimenting on the retarded, for example. and genetics alone or in combination with intelligence is out too, unless we are willing to consider randomly killing an intelligent alien (whose genetics are more different from ours than ours are from oak trees) to be morally acceptable.

so perhaps there are a number of factors that matter, separately and in various combinations. well then, what might they be and what arguments do these factors leave open to us to justify our practices with animals?

Yes it is

we know for an absolute fact that allowing people to drive cars results in an absolutely staggering number of deaths each year. are we murderers for not outlawing cars?

ELF hasn't always informed people of the fact that they've done so

and you know this how? you literally cannot, since what defines an action as an ELF action is precisely that it is done in accordance with ELF principles and is announced as an ELF action. an unannounced tree spiking is both not in line with ELF principles and completely unattributable to them.

Anyways, PETA is known for its creative/weird/outrageous campaigns. What do you think of their tactics? What do you think of the organization itself?I like them. I like their tactics. I occasionally will pretend to sympathize with my meat-eating friends and agree that they can be more offensive than persuasive, but honestly I really don't mind. I don't respect meat eating, and I don't particularly care if seeking basic rights for all sentient life by whatever means possible (and ethical) offends a few people who are part of the problem anyway.

sure, but nobody really thinks all that much about insect rights. however, the fact that as a general point mammals don't live based solely on instinct utterly destroys your proposed distinction. perhaps you wanted to make a different one?

Are you fucking serious? The majority of mammals are just dumb animals who do what they need to to survive. Humans, dolphins and some primates are the exceptions.

I don't really see humans as exceptions. neither did BF Skinner.

Nah, we are. You can tell because we're having this conversation.

Are you fucking serious? The majority of mammals are just dumb animals who do what they need to to survive. Humans, dolphins and some primates are the exceptions.I don't really see humans as exceptions. neither did BF Skinner.

Are you fucking serious? The majority of mammals are just dumb animals who do what they need to to survive. Humans, dolphins and some primates are the exceptions.

yeah, i think you need to read up on animal behavior. some definitions at least. a huge portion of what mammals (and animals more generally) do is learned rather than instinctual.

well, let's see if it is by testing it out. intelligence alone is out, since we actually do and should provide more care and moral consideration to those who have significantly lower intelligences - no dangerous medical experimenting on the retarded, for example. and genetics alone or in combination with intelligence is out too, unless we are willing to consider randomly killing an intelligent alien (whose genetics are more different from ours than ours are from oak trees) to be morally acceptable.

so perhaps there are a number of factors that matter, separately and in various combinations. well then, what might they be and what arguments do these factors leave open to us to justify our practices with animals?

The ability to understand and follow the laws we have set down - and I don't just mean understanding the language. Rights and responsibility - try telling a dolphin that he can't fish there because it's a conservated area. Try telling an elephant that he can't kill those people that are on "his" territory, which isn't actually his because he didn't buy it according to our laws.

Giving people/animals rights means giving them responsibilities. If you want the right to life, you shouldn't kill. If you want the right to property, you shouldn't steal, etc. Unless these laws can be comprehended and conciously followed, why do they deserve the same rights we do?

Fixed.

*is on break from dressing a deer*

Pics of deer (before the messiness started, of course)?

The ability to understand and follow the laws we have set down

and what of children and the mentally handicapped? we do not and should not hold them the same standards we hold ourselves to, but at the same time we should and do offer them greater amounts of moral care and consideration.

Giving people/animals rights means giving them responsibilities.

only in proportion to one's ability to adopt those responsibilities. in some instances, the rights are there regardless. a person in a coma can fulfill no responsibilities, but we must still protect their rights.

why do they deserve the same rights we do?

nobody wants everything to have the same rights, full stop.

try telling a dolphin that he can't fish there because it's a conservated area.I'm reasonably sure that dolphins are capable of learning that (they have no trouble with grammatical subtleties), but to say that most humans know that is a bit of a stretch. animals can be conditioned through reward and punishment exactly the same way humans are - particularly if they are social, though even if they aren't - and more typically "human" emotions like guilt and so on can arise in appropriately conditioned animals just as in humans.

you don't just inform humans that they have responsibilities, you condition them to fear social censure and to anticipate social rewards, and then give cues that make it clear what actions lead to which results. the vast majority of people do not actually register moral decisions or have any notion of "responsibilities" beyond this conditioning. animals can be treated in highly similar ways - the same principles have all sorts of animals doing completely unnatural things...if we can get hamsters to perform on trapezes we can get dolphins to respect conservation zones...though this is all more or less irrelevant to a discussion of animal rights...I'm just trying to point out that humans are not particularly different.

Vegan. :]

They rely on creating emotions using unrelated stimuli and associating it with their 'cause' by a sort of pavlovian conditioning.which is no different from what 99% of churches, governments, and schools do.

No! You fools! Didn't you see 28 Days Later! The PETA will the death of us all! Save yourselfs from the zombies (or rather, the homage to zombies) before it's to late!

Oh, and low post count = gun smiles

:sniper::sniper:

Oh, and low post count = gun smiles

:sniper::sniper:

whoa, meta-noob

I'm just trying to point out that humans are not particularly different.

Absolutely - I don't disagree with that, to be honest. And I personally believe that one or two species could be eligible for "Human" rights.

And, shocking as it may seem, you have made me think about it a little.

But you're right. This is effectively irrelevant to animal rights as a whole. Which I support, I guess. Animals shouldn't be neglected, whether willfully or otherwise, and testing on animals, in my opinion, is suitable for medical purposes so long as the animals are well taken care of. Cosmetic testing on animals, not so much.

Cosmetic testing on animals, not so much.heh, I wouldn't say you support animal rights unless you don't actively eat them...(are you vegetarian? sorry, I've been posting with half my brain tied behind my back, I'm not fully awake yet) they probably mind the whole slaughter-and-consumption thing more than having makeup put on them, but I'm glad to read the above post. msot times I get too into it and offend people past the point where they'd consider it. heh, have a good day, I'm off to go start mine...

heh, I wouldn't say you support animal rights unless you don't actively eat them...(are you vegetarian? sorry, I've been posting with half my brain tied behind my back, I'm not fully awake yet) they probably mind the whole slaughter-and-consumption thing more than having makeup put on them, but I'm glad to read the above post. msot times I get too into it and offend people past the point where they'd consider it. heh, have a good day, I'm off to go start mine...

Nope. But I try to veer away from intensively farmed animals and go to farm shops where they're raised free-range. Admittedly, it's more because it tastes better in my opinion, but hey, at least it's had a better life than it's buddies in the warehouse.

I will eat anything that has flesh...INCLUDING MAN!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

*takes a bite out of the OP*

Also, goat tastes pretty good...

I will eat anything that has flesh...INCLUDING MAN!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

*takes a bite out of the OP*

Also, goat tastes pretty good...

Have you tried swordfish? Pretty awesome. Kinda like tuna, but not salty.

Nope. But I try to veer away from intensively farmed animals and go to farm shops where they're raised free-range.well, beggars can't be choosers, I guess. if you're conscious that they deserve respect and compassion and are basing decisions off of that, I won't criticize you for it, though I'd still of course encourage you to go fully meat-free eventually...it's a lot easier if you aren't on a european diet, though. (indian food FTW!)

well, beggars can't be choosers, I guess. if you're conscious that they deserve respect and compassion and are basing decisions off of that, I won't criticize you for it, though I'd still of course encourage you to go fully meat-free eventually...it's a lot easier if you aren't on a european diet, though. (indian food FTW!)

Hey, if it tastes good, I'm liable to eat it. Livin' life to the full. Oh yes. ;)

There seemed to be some question as to just how much animal testing has driven

In 1889, the Polish-German physician Oscar Minkowski in collaboration with Joseph von Mering removed the pancreas from a healthy dog to test its assumed role in digestion. Several days after the dog's pancreas was removed, Minkowski's animal keeper noticed a swarm of flies feeding on the dog's urine. On testing the urine they found that there was sugar in the dog's urine, establishing for the first time a relationship between the pancreas and diabetes. In 1901, another major step was taken by Eugene Opie, when he clearly established the link between the Islets of Langerhans and diabetes: Diabetes mellitus … is caused by destruction of the islets of Langerhans and occurs only when these bodies are in part or wholly destroyed. Before his work, the link between the pancreas and diabetes was clear, but not the specific role of the islets.

Over the next two decades, several attempts were made to isolate whatever it was the islets produced as a potential treatment. In 1906 George Ludwig Zuelzer was partially successful treating dogs with pancreatic extract but was unable to continue his work. Between 1911 and 1912, E.L. Scott at the University of Chicago used aqueous pancreatic extracts and noted a slight diminution of glycosuria but was unable to convince his director of his work's value; it was shut down. Israel Kleiner demonstrated similar effects at Rockefeller University in 1919, but his work was interrupted by World War I and he did not return to it. Nicolae Paulescu, a professor of physiology at the University of Medicine and Pharmacy in Bucharest was the first one to isolate insulin, which he called at that time pancrein, and published his work in 1921 that had been carried out in Bucharest. Use of his techniques was patented in Romania, though no clinical use resulted.

In October 1920, Frederick Banting was reading one of Minkowski's papers and concluded that it is the very digestive secretions that Minkowski had originally studied that were breaking down the islet secretion(s), thereby making it impossible to extract successfully. He jotted a note to himself Ligate pancreatic ducts of the dog. Keep dogs alive till acini degenerate leaving islets. Try to isolate internal secretion of these and relieve glycosurea.

The idea was that the pancreas's internal secretion, which supposedly regulates sugar in the bloodstream, might hold the key to the treatment of diabetes.

He travelled to Toronto, ON to meet with J.J.R. Macleod, who was not entirely impressed with his idea – so many before him had tried and failed. Nevertheless, he supplied Banting with a lab at the University of Toronto, an assistant (medical student Charles Best), and 10 dogs, then left on vacation during the summer of 1921. Their method was tying a ligature (string) around the pancreatic duct, and, when examined several weeks later, the pancreatic digestive cells had died and been absorbed by the immune system, leaving thousands of islets. They then isolated an extract from these islets, producing what they called isletin (what we now know as insulin), and tested this extract on the dogs. Banting and Best were then able to keep a pancreatectomized dog alive all summer[when? — see talk page] because the extract lowered the level of sugar in the blood.
Every diabetic alive today is because a few dogs got cut up. The story is pretty much the same with chicken pox and smallpox vaccines, organ transplants, etc. If a few (or few thousand) animals have to die so that millions of people and animals can live then it is a chance worth taking and a sacrifice worth making. Medical researchers are fucking heroes and the dipshits who try to blow their work up are fucking monsters. If you torch a hospital or a lab or a pharmacy then you're a monster. Plain and fucking simple. When the target is the place people go to get better or the place that supplies it then it is terrorism, especially if done for political purposes. It isn't protest when someone's house or business gets burned down. It's arson, it's criminal, and in the case of hospitals and labs it's evil.

Every diabetic alive today is because a few dogs got cut up. The story is pretty much the same with chicken pox and smallpox vaccines, organ transplants, etc. If a few (or few thousand) animals have to die so that millions of people and animals can live then it is a chance worth taking and a sacrifice worth making. Medical researchers are fucking heroes and the dipshits who try to blow their work up are fucking monsters. If you torch a hospital or a lab or a pharmacy then you're a monster. Plain and fucking simple. When the target is the place people go to get better or the place that supplies it then it is terrorism, especially if done for political purposes. It isn't protest when someone's house or business gets burned down. It's arson, it's criminal, and in the case of hospitals and labs it's evil.

Of course defenders of fruitcakes groups like PETA and ALF will defend "Direct Action" with the old myth of "It's not terrorism if it doesn't kill people." Just because nobody gets blown or shot up doesn't mean it's not terrorism. If a lab gets destroyed to make a statement against animal testing, it's committing an act of violence to coerce a group of people into following a certain viewpoint. That's terrorism. It doesn't have to kill people. It just has to be violence directed against others or the property of others with a political purpose.

Of course defenders of fruitcakes groups like PETA and ALF will defend "Direct Action" with the old myth of "It's not terrorism if it doesn't kill people." Just because nobody gets blown or shot up doesn't mean it's not terrorism. If a lab gets destroyed to make a statement against animal testing, it's committing an act of violence to coerce a group of people into following a certain viewpoint. That's terrorism. It doesn't have to kill people. It just has to be violence directed against others or the property of others with a political purpose.

war, policing, sabotage. terrorism? they all involve violence directed against people and property for a political purpose, after all. come on guys, think your definitions through first.

If a few (or few thousand) animals have to die so that millions of people and animals can live then it is a chance worth taking and a sacrifice worth making.

a good start on an argument - very utilitarian. now flesh it out. what is your proposed ratio and how sure do we have to be of a future benefit? how great a chance and sacrifice is worth how little of a benefit? also, what, precisely is to be allowed and to what - and how do you justify that choice.

I like most of those meats except lamb (i don't know why, but it tastes horrible), i've never eaten Katganistan, but i'm curious about option 9.
*realises other people are actually talking about PETA* oh them again, why sex toys? what a strange way to argue for animal rights.
Of course eating animals is wrong, but so is killing humans and that's still happening but i don't see PETA complaining about that, so why not eat animals, they're part of our diet some happen to taste nice.
On a different note, is it true Hitler was a vegetarian?

war, policing, sabotage. terrorism? they all involve violence directed against people and property for a political purpose, after all. come on guys, think your definitions through first.

The FBI has categotically stated that ALF is a domestic terrorist organization. (http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm)

Therefore any "Directed Action" committed by ALF or anyone claiming association with them can be legally termed an act of domestic terrorism. And apparently you're trying to equivocate their terrorist acts to one nationstate declaring war on another. Considering that ALF is not a nationstate but an organization, just as Al'Qaeda is not a nationstate but an organization, that's some deep crack pipe you're smoking from. Any of ALF's members apprehended for any "Direct Action" can be legally treated as a terrorist, which means no Geneva Convention rights and a trip to Gitmo that few people will actually decry as a violation of human rights for a change.

and therefore all war is terrorism?

Correct.

and where have i approved of killing people?

In several threads.

The "Lakota Secede" one, for example.

In several threads.

The "Lakota Secede" one, for example.

oh, well certainly, there are numerous instances where killing people is morally acceptable. only crazed pacifists deny that. i meant in the context of environmental direct action. you know, here.

no, just using an example of two groups that actually were used for medical experimentation which is nearly uniformly considered unjust to show that the fact that medical advances were made in a certain way does not automatically justify those means.

I seem to recall PETA arguing that it was better for human experimentation than animal experimentation, so your argument flies out the window and messily splatters itself on the cobblestones of reality.

oh, well certainly, there are numerous instances where killing people is morally acceptable. only crazed pacifists deny that. i meant in the context of environmental direct action. you know, here.

So basically what you're saying is that if you're doing something that I don't approve of, its ok for me to destroy your stuff - as long as you don't get killed?

because that's exactly what ELF does

no, i approve of direct action when direct action is needed

Then under the purview of public security, you approve of the immediate arrest and incarceration of all ALF members without open trial (they get a trial, but not open to the public). Do you not?

I seem to recall PETA arguing that it was better for human experimentation than animal experimentation, so your argument flies out the window and messily splatters itself on the cobblestones of reality.

Someone better clean up, then.

*hands random NSGer a mop*

I seem to recall PETA arguing that it was better for human experimentation than animal experimentation, so your argument flies out the window and messily splatters itself on the cobblestones of reality.

That along with Ingrid Newkirk's infamous comment about chickens going through a lot worse than what the Jews suffered in the Holocaust paints a very detailed picture of what PETA's leadership really thinks about humanity:

Driven mad by your own flesh. The stink of humanity. Oh, you hate your own existence. And that makes them more deadly than ever.

The FBI has categotically stated that ALF is a domestic terrorist organization. (http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm)

Therefore any "Directed Action" committed by ALF or anyone claiming association with them can be legally termed an act of domestic terrorism. And apparently you're trying to equivocate their terrorist acts to one nationstate declaring war on another. Considering that ALF is not a nationstate but an organization, just as Al'Qaeda is not a nationstate but an organization, that's some deep crack pipe you're smoking from.

i don't fucking care how the state defines terrorism. especially not this state. i'm analyzing the concept here. higher level of thinking than just listening to what the authorities tell you - i recommend giving it a shot sometime.

and i'll note that you didn't include this nation-state exemption in your earlier definition. i can hardly be faulted for not guessing you intended to include one. i do find such an exemption to be utterly self-serving, myself, as i see no meaningful difference between a bunch of non-state actors slamming a plane full of civilians into a building full of civilians, and members of a nation-state's military acting on official nation-state orders doing so. perhaps you'd care to explain the relevance of the distinction?

and then there is the little problem of still calling all war actions by non-state groups 'terrorism'. this includes every single revolutionary and insurgent group ever, as well as everything war-ish done by other forms of social organization besides the nation-state. hell, limiting it to a nation-state exemption means that city-states are always 'terrorists' in war. again, if that be 'terrorism', then 'terrorism' is very often good.

I seem to recall PETA arguing that it was better for human experimentation than animal experimentation, so your argument flies out the window and messily splatters itself on the cobblestones of reality.

only if i agree with PETA's alleged argument. do i?

Someone better clean up, then.

*hands random NSGer a mop*

*sigh*

*takes mop and starts cleaning up half-heartedly*

So basically what you're saying is that if you're doing something that I don't approve of, its ok for me to destroy your stuff - as long as you don't get killed?

because that's exactly what ELF does

depends on what i'm doing, and what your argument against it is. but in a whole host of conceivable circumstances, yes. you already accept this yourself, in other contexts. you are and should be allowed (and fuck, morally obligated) to destroy somebody's stuff if the stuff in question poses an immediate danger to someone.

mere disapproval, however, won't cut it. obviously.

depends on what i'm doing, and what your argument against it is. but in a whole host of conceivable circumstances, yes. you already accept this yourself, in other contexts. you are and should be allowed (and fuck, morally obligated) to destroy somebody's stuff if the stuff in question poses an immediate danger to someone.

mere disapproval, however, won't cut it. obviously.

And what person is endangered by animal testing?

*sigh*

*takes mop and starts cleaning up half-heartedly*
Just think of it as the price for turning my other half into jerky.
-- Norden

PS. The jerky tastes nice, too.

Just think of it as the price for turning my other half into jerky.
-- Norden
OK

*starts cleaning up in earnest*
PS. The jerky tastes nice, too.

It's all in how you marinate it

*passes out more samples of teriyaki Brutland jerky*

And what person is endangered by animal testing?

the animal, if we accept the arguments of the animal liberationists about what entities should be included in our moral consideration. you do know their arguments, don't you?

besides, why should physical endangerment of persons be the only situation where ethics allows us to destroy property? we at least generally accept that there are other situations where it is ok to do so for tactical reasons, or to prevent future physical endangerment, or to send a message, etc.

oh, well certainly, there are numerous instances where killing people is morally acceptable.
Too bad none of the situations you support are among those instances.

the animal, if we accept the arguments of the animal liberationists about what entities should be included in our moral consideration.
which I don't
you do know their arguments, don't you?
Yup, just don't agree with it
besides, why should physical endangerment of persons be the only situation where ethics allows us to destroy other people's property?
Added in important piece
we at least generally accept that there are other situations where it is ok to do so for tactical reasons, or to prevent future physical endangerment, or to send a message, etc.
Is there a mouse in your pocket?

And what person is endangered by animal testing?
the animal, if we accept the arguments of the animal liberationists about what entities should be included in our moral consideration.
Animals are persons now? :confused:

Animals are persons now? :confused:

According to Free Soviets, apparently so.

Too bad none of the situations you support are among those instances.

in what situations do you believe i support morally objectionable killings?

According to Free Soviets, apparently so.

actually, i disagree about calling them persons. hence my qualification of the statement.

of course, i also disagree that persons are the only things that ought have moral standing.

Animals are persons now? :confused:

And that is the faulty crux of the Animal Liberationist's logic. That all animals are equal to human beings in all regards, including the right to self-determination regardless of scientific observations that most animals possess nowhere near the sentience, awareness of intangible concepts or creativity displayed by human beings.

Going by that logic, insects and plants would be accorded the same rights as human beings as well and if we couldn't eat anything alive, then well that'll put the human race in a real shitter won't it?

Now while I personally disagree with that assessment, that doesn't mean I'm right. An example of how public awareness changed over time:
"Colored folk are persons now? :confused:"

It's quite possible that considering all sentient beings equal will one day be the norm.

And the day a rabbit is considered sentient is the day I'll shoot myself
(in the foot with a bb gun)

Animals are persons now? :confused:Now while I personally disagree with that assessment, that doesn't mean I'm right. An example of how public awareness changed over time:
"Colored folk are persons now? :confused:"

It's quite possible that considering all sentient beings equal will one day be the norm.

Now while I personally disagree with that assessment, that doesn't mean I'm right. An example of how public awareness changed over time:
"Colored folk are persons now? :confused:"

It's quite possible that considering all sentient beings equal will one day be the norm.

precisely. the argument is out there, and rises and falls on its own merits, regardless of current acceptance of it.

Now while I personally disagree with that assessment, that doesn't mean I'm right. An example of how public awareness changed over time:
"Colored folk are persons now? :confused:"

It's quite possible that considering all sentient beings equal will one day be the norm.
Who defines which is sentient? :confused:

That all animals are equal to human beings in all regards

...is a ridiculous straw man.

Who defines which is sentient? :confused:Society. And society may change.

And the day a rabbit is considered sentient is the day I'll shoot myself
(in the foot with a bb gun)

Sorry about your foot.

Society. And society may change.
So I should enjoy this Brutland jerky Dyakovo made while society still approves of it? :confused:

And the day a rabbit is considered sentient is the day I'll shoot myself
(in the foot with a bb gun)

Sentience is the ability to differentiate between oneself and one's environment. Rabbits are sentient. I'll require photographic or video evidence.

Sorry about your foot.

LOL

So I should enjoy this Brutland jerky Dyakovo made while society still approves of it? :confused:

Yes

Sentience is the ability to differentiate between oneself and one's environment. Rabbits are sentient. I'll require photographic or video evidence.

So I was confusing sentience and sapience. My bad.

Society. And society may change.
Hey, wait... science doesn't define sentience, society does? :confused:

EDIT. Hmmm. the above post may have answered it, but how 'bout plants?

Hey, wait... science doesn't define sentience, society does? :confused:

EDIT. Hmmm. the above post may have answered it, but how 'bout plants?

Hard to say. They react to their environment, and they have a chemical nervous system (as opposed to our electrical one) if I remember correctly, but they do not appear to have actual cognitive abilities, and thus cannot distinguish between themselves and their environment.

Hey, wait... science doesn't define sentience, society does? :confused:

EDIT. Hmmm. the above post may have answered it, but how 'bout plants?Society defines science. Science is part of society and has gained certain degrees of independence, but concepts such as "race", "species", and "alive" are still around, reflecting society's need to categorize things. Science and society defining sentience are not mutually exclusive, as science is a sub-category of society, and has changed and will change over time.

PETA has consistently shown that it is an ignorant and dangerous organization. Its continued existence is detrimental to society, and it should be dismantled.

Where do you draw the line at who is intelegent enough to have rights? Why not exstend it to includet te more intellegent animals like apes and dolphins, or restrict it to only include the most intelegent humans? I'm not saying we should treat nonhumans the same as us, but I think that all sentient beings should have the right not to be caused harm.

And what determines sentience hmm? Why not expand it to all living beings? Then we can accuse your immune system of incalculable genocide of billions of germs.

Now while I personally disagree with that assessment, that doesn't mean I'm right. An example of how public awareness changed over time:
"Colored folk are persons now? :confused:"

It's quite possible that considering all sentient beings equal will one day be the norm.
All sentient beings are not people. Plus not all sentient beings are even intelligent enough to be self-aware, take the animal rights groups for example.

...is a ridiculous straw man.

at least they are busting out some strawmen to argue against. without that it's mainly been just a bunch of dick waving and chest thumping. not that there's anything wrong with that.

only if i agree with PETA's alleged argument. do i?

Ahh, but you used the argument that medical testing on humans, due to skin color, were parallel to animal testing, an argument PETA uses. That in itself infers that you are in agreement with PETA does it not?

well, that would depend on the terror and the wrong those others are committing, wouldn't it? i mean, clearly it is right and good in at least some circumstances to put someone in fear of their life (say, by putting a gun to their head) to stop them from killing someone else.

Then clearly it is good to make Ingrid Newkirk, president of PETA, fear for her life by forcing her to live up to her name by putting a gun to her head, thus preventing her from ever taking another insulin jab (derived from pigs) so that she may die a slow and lingering death of diabetic shock.

I like them. I like their tactics. I occasionally will pretend to sympathize with my meat-eating friends and agree that they can be more offensive than persuasive, but honestly I really don't mind. I don't respect meat eating, and I don't particularly care if seeking basic rights for all sentient life by whatever means possible (and ethical) offends a few people who are part of the problem anyway.

Then you certainly won't mind if the inverse becomes true won't you? Turnabout is fair play after all.

Ahh, but you used the argument that medical testing on humans, due to skin color, were parallel to animal testing, an argument PETA uses. That in itself infers that you are in agreement with PETA does it not?

no. especially since i did not argue that it was equivalent, merely that the argument given in favor of animal testing (that such testing was justified by the results it has produced) falls flat. but even if i did so argue, your conclusion most certainly would not follow.

i argue X
PETA argues X
therefore i agree with PETA about Y

that's just silly.

Then clearly it is good to make Ingrid Newkirk, president of PETA, fear for her life by forcing her to live up to her name by putting a gun to her head, thus preventing her from ever taking another insulin jab (derived from pigs) so that she may die a slow and lingering death of diabetic shock.

how does that follow?


honestly, is there something about PETA in particular that makes otherwise rational people lose all grip on logic?

no. especially since i did not argue that it was equivalent, merely that the argument given in favor of animal testing (that such testing was justified by the results it has produced) falls flat. but even if i did so argue, your conclusion most certainly would not follow.

i argue X
PETA argues X
therefore i agree with PETA about Y

that's just silly.

No, the inference is that you agree with PETA about X. But PETA also argues about Y, which invalidates X.

how does that follow?


Ingrid Newkirk is violently opposed to any form of animal research as well as byproducts of animal research. This includes insulin. Ingrid Newkirk is diabetic and takes insulin.

Thereby, if she were to follow her beliefs, she would condemn herself to death by diabetic shock. Clearly, she does not.

Since Ingrid Newkirk also supports violence to enforce abstaining from animal research and use of animal byproducts, she is now, by her statements, a valid target for forced denial of insulin until she dies.

I don't care what you believe in, but if you're willing to force others to follow you, you had better be damn well prepared to be forced to follow them too.

I loathe hypocrites. Oh, and as for losing rationality. I do quite like what you've stated here. Lose my grip on logic do I?

oh, well certainly, there are numerous instances where killing people is morally acceptable.

To me, removing Ingrid Newkirk from existence by insulin withholding would be moral not only in my eyes, but her professed opinion, it would also be poetic justice.

I am a vegetarian for health reasons as opposed to animal rights reasons. However, I will not support the attempt to force my particular lifestyle choice on others through violence or scare tactics and so do not endorse PETA's activities.

Yay PETA!

You didn't put "vegan" as a poll option! :mad:

What do you think of their tactics?
PETA relies on sexism to get their point across (ie. exchanging one oppression for another). They thrive on media attention, they are in it to promote themselves and not animal-rights.


What do you think of the organization itself?
Peta is NOT an animal-rights organization, they are welfarists who promote "happy meat" and "humane slaughter"

You may not know this but PETA actually works with Burger King and even gave an award to slaughterhouse designer Temple Grandin.

These "humane" slaughter methods PETA promotes are either designed to hide what's going on from the animals, or to restrain the animals - if the animal is stunned, there would be no broken bones, therefore the "quality" of meat would be higher and thus more profitable for the company. Welfarism makes animal exploitation more efficient.

The reason welfarism has been accepted by the mainstream is because people don't like to be told what they're doing is problematic - they like to be told to continue doing whatever they're doing as long as they're being "conscientious". Welfarism also does not decrease demand for animal products, but instead creates a market niche.

The way large welfarist organizations like PETA work is in many ways, akin to businesses, and if you look at PETA and the RSPCA's websites, you'll see they encourage an eco-consumerist mentality.

PETA in particular, gets recognized by the mainstream as "those girls with pussy and tits" - they are professional activists who want the spotlight, they don't want to abolish animal exploitation.

The welfarist-dominated animal-rights "movement" fails to recognize broader social issues and seems to have a fetish with only animal suffering and not the suffering of humans. To abolitionists, speciecism is an equal oppression to racism, sexism and homophobia in that you assume one group has the right to exploit a sentient other.

The day any criticism of PETA among the animal-rights community is silenced in the name of "it's for the animals!" is the day the "movement" has turned into a cult.


A lot of people here have been saying "just because animals are sentient, it doesn't make them intelligent" which is irrelevant because sentient beings have the capability to suffer and feel pain the same way we do. Using your logic, would it be OK to torture human infants? Afterall, they can't reason abstractly.

Some are even saying plants can feel pain. Do you REALLY think plants feel pain or is that your lame attempt to make animal-rights arguements sound silly in order to justify your meat-eating?

If you stick a hot poker in your eyeball, YOU SCREAM! If you stick a hot poker on a pig, he/she SCREAMS and runs away! If you stick a hot poker on a piece of broccoli... nothing happens. Plants are not sentient, they have no central nervous system.

Assuming you really do think plants feel pain, think of the massive amounts of grain that go into the cattle industry. You'd be saving a lot more plants by not eating meat than by eating them.


I highly recommend everyone here watch Earthlings
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhxKnys7Ryw&&)

For every animal you don't eat, I will eat five.

Yay PETA!

Yay for what?

Yay for what?

Their antics, their stances... them just being them.

You didn't put "vegan" as a poll option! :mad:
Try option 6: "Other". Be sure to fill in the blank. ;)

For every animal you don't eat, I will eat five.

L0L0LOMGL0L YOU ARE SO ORIGINAL! Seriously, I haven't heard that on Maddox's site or anything before, LOL! YOU ARE SO FUNNY! Seriously, that is the funniest and most original thing I've ever heard! ROTFLMFAO! You are so funny! ha. ha. :rolleyes:

No, the inference is that you agree with PETA about X. But PETA also argues about Y, which invalidates X.

that's even worse.

i argue X
PETA argues X and not X
therefore i argue not X

that's not silly, that's fucking retarded and we are all stupider for having read it

Ingrid Newkirk is violently opposed to any form of animal research as well as byproducts of animal research. This includes insulin. Ingrid Newkirk is diabetic and takes insulin.

Thereby, if she were to follow her beliefs, she would condemn herself to death by diabetic shock. Clearly, she does not.

Since Ingrid Newkirk also supports violence to enforce abstaining from animal research and use of animal byproducts, she is now, by her statements, a valid target for forced denial of insulin until she dies.

I don't care what you believe in, but if you're willing to force others to follow you, you had better be damn well prepared to be forced to follow them too.

I loathe hypocrites.

two problems. first, i don't believe you that newkirk supports the use of violence against any and all beneficiary of animal research - gotta link or something? second, who cares what she supports? the use of force against her must be justified independently of what she happens to believe, unless it is the case that her beliefs themselves ethically obligate us to use violence against her. hypocrisy does not itself justify violence. or at least you have not presented a case that it does.

L0L0LOMGL0L YOU ARE SO ORIGINAL! Seriously, I haven't heard that on Maddox's site or anything before, LOL! YOU ARE SO FUNNY! Seriously, that is the funniest and most original thing I've ever heard! ROTFLMFAO! You are so funny! ha. ha. :rolleyes:

Who said I was trying to be funny?

Here's an idea: Instead of testing on animals, let's test on PETA members.

Here's an idea: Instead of testing on animals, let's test on PETA members.

That would be discriminatory
can't leave out the wackos in other terrorist-style animal rights groups (ELF)

That would be discriminatory
can't leave out the wackos in other terrorist-style animal rights groups (ELF)

LOL

LOL

*in really bad Elvis imitation*
"Thank you, thank you very much"

that's even worse.

i argue X
PETA argues X and not X
therefore i argue not X


Silly FS. You really don't get what I am trying to get across do you? Your defense of PETA falls apart because PETA argues both X and Y. Not that you argue X which becomes not X. But that you argue X in the defense of those that use X and not X.


two problems. first, i don't believe you that newkirk supports the use of violence against any and all beneficiary of animal research


Well, what do you consider payoffs to ALF then? ALF who expressly uses violence to achieve their goals?

http://www.the-aps.org/publications/tphys/2003html/Oct03/paffair.htm

And yes, wikinews, but it was what was immediately available.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Ingrid_Newkirk%2C_co-founder_of_PETA%2C_on_animal_rights_and_the_film_about_her_life


second, who cares what she supports? the use of force against her must be justified independently of what she happens to believe, unless it is the case that her beliefs themselves ethically obligate us to use violence against her. hypocrisy does not itself justify violence. or at least you have not presented a case that it does.

Maybe hypocrisy to you does not justify violence. To me, if you espouse or support violence to have your views enforced, then you had better be prepared to have that violence being used against you to make sure you follow those views when you don't follow them.

Yes, I'm aware that leaves me wide open to violence from a theoretical aspect if I start contradicting myself, and you know what? I'd welcome it.

no, just using an example of two groups that actually were used for medical experimentation which is nearly uniformly considered unjust to show that the fact that medical advances were made in a certain way does not automatically justify those means.

well, that would depend on the terror and the wrong those others are committing, wouldn't it? i mean, clearly it is right and good in at least some circumstances to put someone in fear of their life (say, by putting a gun to their head) to stop them from killing someone else.

because if they are right in their ethical arguments, in some cases blowing shit up is the right thing to do.

So where we can draw the line on the end justifing the means is up to you? I'm not saying that experimenting on humans was justified, but it's a little odd that you can say that the end doesn't automatically justify the means, and then go on to say that bombing are okay as long as it gets the job done.

If you stick a hot poker in your eyeball, YOU SCREAM! If you stick a hot poker on a pig, he/she SCREAMS and runs away! If you stick a hot poker on a piece of broccoli... nothing happens. Plants are not sentient, they have no central nervous system.

They don't have a central nervous system, but they can still respond to damage, it just takes a very long time for the responses to move through the plant. Also compare a severed piece of broccoli to a whole pig doesn't work. Plants can't feel pain, but they can certainly tell when they being cut to pieces.

Jews and blacks are animals- so are whites, Christians and everyone else. The 'logic' used by racists is the same logic that says humans are superiour to nonhumans. If it's wrong to discriminate because of race then you'd think it'd be wrong to discriminate because of species.

And by your logic, there is no superior organism between a human, an ant and some fungus.

Silly FS. You really don't get what I am trying to get across do you? Your defense of PETA falls apart because PETA argues both X and Y. Not that you argue X which becomes not X. But that you argue X in the defense of those that use X and not X.

defense of PETA? the farthest i've gone in defending PETA has been to say that their opponents seem unable to frame actual valid arguments, and that i think their batshit craziness is a shtick, given their overall effectiveness and the typically poor results associated with real batshit crazy.

i have also engaged in some counterarguing against a couple proposals for what ought be given moral consideration and what ought be defined as terrorism, as well as mentioned that i support the use of direct action in certain circumstances.

but there have been no all-in defenses of PETA on my end.

Well, what do you consider payoffs to ALF then? ALF who expressly uses violence to achieve their goals?

at most, support for the limited property destruction endorsed by the ALF, rather than outright violence against any and all beneficiaries of animal cruelty.

Maybe hypocrisy to you does not justify violence. To me, if you espouse or support violence to have your views enforced, then you had better be prepared to have that violence being used against you to make sure you follow those views when you don't follow them.

Yes, I'm aware that leaves me wide open to violence from a theoretical aspect if I start contradicting myself, and you know what? I'd welcome it.

but do you have an argument for this view? just stating something isn't good enough. nor is being willing to accept the logical consequences of it.

besides, everyone who isn't a pacifist and a certain subset of anarchists espouses and supports violence to have their views enforced - think law enforcement, for example.

So where we can draw the line on the end justifing the means is up to you?

no, what ends and what means are just is a matter to be decided by argument.

I'm not saying that experimenting on humans was justified, but it's a little odd that you can say that the end doesn't automatically justify the means, and then go on to say that bombing are okay as long as it gets the job done.

that ain't what i said.

that ain't what i said.
Actually, yes it is.
because if they are right in their ethical arguments, in some cases blowing shit up is the right thing to do.

no, what ends and what means are just is a matter to be decided by argument.

Oh okay, that's fine, I guess I read it wrong.

defense of PETA? the farthest i've gone in defending PETA has been to say that their opponents seem unable to frame actual valid arguments, and that i think their batshit craziness is a shtick, given their overall effectiveness and the typically poor results associated with real batshit crazy.

i have also engaged in some counterarguing against a couple proposals for what ought be given moral consideration and what ought be defined as terrorism, as well as mentioned that i support the use of direct action in certain circumstances.

but there have been no all-in defenses of PETA on my end.


Well fine, if what you're doing is simply logical analysis and reversals of arguments, that makes this whole thing moot.


at most, support for the limited property destruction endorsed by the ALF, rather than outright violence against any and all beneficiaries of animal cruelty.

... did you shift the goalposts, or did you misunderstand what I said. Ingrid Newkirk supports the use of violence to prevent people from receiving any of the benefits of animal derived medical research. Thereby, by her own words, the use of violence to prevent her from receiving insulin would be justified, even if the end result is her death.


but do you have an argument for this view? just stating something isn't good enough. nor is being willing to accept the logical consequences of it.

Very simple. If hypocrites were forced to suffer the consequences of their proposals, it would serve as a deterrent for future hypocritical actions, and less assorted stupidity. And maybe, just maybe, there would be less criminal acts perpetrated in the name of hypocritical stupidity.

I don't endorse either PETA or the ALF but I think there is a myth going around here that the ALF is an "organization" and somehow PETA are "funding" them. It's not an organization. It's just a name that people who engage in direct action against animal-exploiters use.

Again, I do not endorse what they do but calling animal-rescues (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brfJm1dEJk4) "terrorism" is going a bit far (ecspecially coming from George Bush and his cronies).

Now for why I don't like the ALF. Many activists in the ALF think violence is 'radical' but in fact it is quite conservative as using violence isn't exactly something new and it doesn't address the root cause of exploitation. Radical means addressing the root cause. Instead, it offers the person committing violent acts temporary, personal satisfaction and creates a culture of hero worship while alienating the actual cause.

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/4300/cerdos012xt7.jpg

Pics of deer (before the messiness started, of course)?

It wasn't mine. A friend of mine got it and put out the call, and those that helped would be fed on the spot. He actually had two, as I hadn't seen the second one in the back of his truck due to his tonneau cover. The herd has grown far too large in recent years, and there's been a problem with deer starving due to the scarcity of food so the state increased the amount of tags (doe and buck) that it's sold this year.

(Man in blue shirt)

Something about that man's expression bothers me. He just looks so damn smug.

What do I think of them? Trash, a bunch of morons with no life and who are too stupid to spend their time on something of actual use to people. (humans) But still not as bad as the terrorist nut-jobs of the ALF/ELF and the like. Basically, the same as most of the other eco-scum.

Protest sex dolls seized in Philippines - rights group (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22976863-23109,00.html)


I can't seem to find a local news source for this...

Anyways, PETA is known for its creative/weird/outrageous campaigns. What do you think of their tactics? What do you think of the organization itself?

Sex dolls? This is.. very compelling evidence. I would like some time to examine these assets in private...

*grabs doll and runs off*

Who said I was trying to be funny?

If you weren't you were just being stupid. Do you have any idea what would happen with you if you started eating 10* times the amount of meat you eat now? It would be quite unhealthy.

*(I don't know how many vegetarians or vegans posted in this thread, but 10 doesn't seem far of)


Sex dolls? This is.. very compelling evidence. I would like some time to examine these assets in private...

*grabs doll and runs off*

:D

I still don't understand why these sex dolls were taken by the police. Is it illegal to own sex dolls there?

I still don't understand why these sex dolls were taken by the police. Is it illegal to own sex dolls there?

Not familiar with the laws of the Philipines, but it might be.

Well fine, if what you're doing is simply logical analysis and reversals of arguments, that makes this whole thing moot.

only if figuring out the truth of the matter is moot.

... did you shift the goalposts, or did you misunderstand what I said. Ingrid Newkirk supports the use of violence to prevent people from receiving any of the benefits of animal derived medical research. Thereby, by her own words, the use of violence to prevent her from receiving insulin would be justified, even if the end result is her death.

except that the violence she supports (such as it is), is not aimed at stopping people from receiving the benefits, but rather at stopping the research itself. significant distinction, from their point of view, as it limits the scope of what tactics and targets they hold as justified.

Very simple. If hypocrites were forced to suffer the consequences of their proposals, it would serve as a deterrent for future hypocritical actions, and less assorted stupidity. And maybe, just maybe, there would be less criminal acts perpetrated in the name of hypocritical stupidity.

ah, but why should mere hypocrisy be a capital offense? shit, there are good arguments against having murder be a capital offense, what makes hypocrisy a better candidate for it?

Actually, yes it is.

how does that quote in any way imply that i think "that bombing is okay as long as it gets the job done"? there are many things which could conceivably 'get the job done', and those wouldn't all be ok - no viruses to wipe out the human race entirely, for example. this is because getting the job done is not, in itself, an ethical justification for action.

Call to power, ColaDrinkers, Desperate Measures, Fabistan, Fall of Empire, Hirota, Hydesland, Ifreann, Imperio Mexicano, Indri, Kragdjen, Maraque, New Lindinia, Nobel Hobos, Pangea Minor, Plotadonia, Posi, Ruskie-land, SeathorniaII, Second Antarctica, Shlarg, SimNewtonia, Soviet Haaregrad, Sumamba Buwhan, The Horror Channel, Tropicopa, Unlucky_and_unbiddable, UpwardThrust

You're all very naughty and you wish! :D :D :D

how does that quote in any way imply that i think "that bombing is okay as long as it gets the job done"? there are many things which could conceivably 'get the job done', and those wouldn't all be ok - no viruses to wipe out the human race entirely, for example. this is because getting the job done is not, in itself, an ethical justification for action.

Have you been reading what you have been posting?
Here I'll put it back into context for you:
He firebombed a medical research facility. It wasn't even some drug company lab, it belonged to Michigan U. Over 3 decades of data was lost. Millions in equipment and building was damaged beyond usefullness and repair or completely destroyed. They were trying to cure terminal diseases and he blew it all up! How does that not make you a fucking monster?because if they are right in their ethical arguments, in some cases blowing shit up is the right thing to do. i know this is complicated, but there are actual arguments underpinning the animal liberation/animal rights movement. if you wish to oppose the movement, you must address the arguments.

The 'best' thing I ever saw about PETA is there is a river in New York state called the Fishkill, they demonstrated and protested, saying that the name promoted the killing of fish.

Yes, because apparently they are too idiotic to remember that New York was originally a Dutch colony, that "kill" in Dutch means creek, and that (DUH!) there were a lot of fish in that creek when the town was named.

I suppose according to them "Arthur Kill Road" in Staten Island is either a command to slaughter a transportation artery or to drag guys named Arthur down to the road and kill them there.

Yes, because apparently they are too idiotic to remember that New York was originally a Dutch colony, that "kill" in Dutch means creek, and that (DUH!) there were a lot of fish in that creek when the town was named.

I suppose according to them "Arthur Kill Road" in Staten Island is either a command to slaughter a transportation artery or to drag guys named Arthur down to the road and kill them there.

It's obviously a place where you are encouraged to kill people named Arthur.

I still don't understand why these sex dolls were taken by the police. Is it illegal to own sex dolls there?

Not familiar with the laws of the Philipines, but it might be.
I heard that one local porn star put up a website dedicated to selling sex toys, so, I think they're legal here. I think... but then, many things are illegal here and yet we still do them... :D

I heard that one local porn star put up a website dedicated to selling sex toys, so, I think they're legal here. I think... but then, many things are illegal here and yet we still do them... :D

OK, maybe its the combination of PETA and sex toys that are illegal ;)

Have you been reading what you have been posting?
Here I'll put it back into context for you:

yeah, your interpretation still doesn't fall out of that. it isn't even an obvious misinterpretation to make.

The FBI has categotically stated that ALF is a domestic terrorist organization. (http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm)

Therefore any "Directed Action" committed by ALF or anyone claiming association with them can be legally termed an act of domestic terrorism. And apparently you're trying to equivocate their terrorist acts to one nationstate declaring war on another. Considering that ALF is not a nationstate but an organization, just as Al'Qaeda is not a nationstate but an organization, that's some deep crack pipe you're smoking from. Any of ALF's members apprehended for any "Direct Action" can be legally treated as a terrorist, which means no Geneva Convention rights and a trip to Gitmo that few people will actually decry as a violation of human rights for a change.

While I agree with your assessment, he did say he supported ELF, not ALF. They are, I believe, two different organizations?

yeah, your interpretation still doesn't fall out of that. it isn't even an obvious misinterpretation to make.

So what were you saying when you said
in some cases blowing shit up is the right thing to do.

While I agree with your assessment, he did say he supported ELF, not ALF. They are, I believe, two different organizations?

Yup, probably share a lot of members since their goals and methods are very similar.

the animal, if we accept the arguments of the animal liberationists about what entities should be included in our moral consideration. you do know their arguments, don't you?

besides, why should physical endangerment of persons be the only situation where ethics allows us to destroy property? we at least generally accept that there are other situations where it is ok to do so for tactical reasons, or to prevent future physical endangerment, or to send a message, etc.

Then clearly, if a group of EatingAnimalsisRightists showed up and firebombed your house for your arguments endangering their preferred lifestyle, it's fine.

Then clearly, if a group of EatingAnimalsisRightists showed up and firebombed your house for your arguments endangering their preferred lifestyle, it's fine.

FS will undoubtedly argue that it isn't because he doesn't feel that their opinion is ethically right ;)

OK, maybe its the combination of PETA and sex toys that are illegal ;)
Will make it illegal once I become President. ;) j/k

only if figuring out the truth of the matter is moot.


Truth of matters would be factual events, not logical constructs unfortunately.


except that the violence she supports (such as it is), is not aimed at stopping people from receiving the benefits, but rather at stopping the research itself. significant distinction, from their point of view, as it limits the scope of what tactics and targets they hold as justified.

So let me see if I have this straight. Burning down a medical facility which produces insulin, wherein the products are derived from animals, is somehow different from burning down a medical facility which uses animals for the testing and production of medicines?

And again, since she opposes any form of research, including the byproducts, that utilizes animals, I believe she was quoted once as saying she would oppose AIDS medication if it was derived from animal testing, by her reasoning, she should not be using insulin to extend her lifespan.

Why is this not hypocritical?


ah, but why should mere hypocrisy be a capital offense? shit, there are good arguments against having murder be a capital offense, what makes hypocrisy a better candidate for it?

Hypocrisy isn't a capital offense. If because of the views you espouse, when forced to live by them, ultimately result in your own termination, then that is simply the consequence of lack of thinking on your part.

Violence is outdated in this day and age, the only thing that can really have an effect is strikes.

Violence is outdated in this day and age, the only thing that can really have an effect is strikes.

it's so simple, the only thing the animals have to do is to stop being delicious.

it's so simple, the only thing the animals have to do is to stop being delicious.

lol

Truth of matters would be factual events, not logical constructs unfortunately.

perhaps there is no truth of the matter. but clearly there are bad arguments, and it is not praiseworthy to use them. therefore sorting out the good and bad arguments is good and worthwhile enterprise. and most of the arguments flying around here have been bad.

So let me see if I have this straight. Burning down a medical facility which produces insulin, wherein the products are derived from animals, is somehow different from burning down a medical facility which uses animals for the testing and production of medicines?

And again, since she opposes any form of research, including the byproducts, that utilizes animals, I believe she was quoted once as saying she would oppose AIDS medication if it was derived from animal testing, by her reasoning, she should not be using insulin to extend her lifespan.

Why is this not hypocritical?

it is hypocritical. however, you said that her view, combined with my trivially true statement that the use of force is sometimes just, entailed,
Then clearly it is good to make Ingrid Newkirk, president of PETA, fear for her life by forcing her to live up to her name by putting a gun to her head, thus preventing her from ever taking another insulin jab (derived from pigs) so that she may die a slow and lingering death of diabetic shock.

which just simply doesn't follow either from my statement, her views, or some combination of them.

perhaps there is no truth of the matter. but clearly there are bad arguments, and it is not praiseworthy to use them. therefore sorting out the good and bad arguments is good and worthwhile enterprise. and most of the arguments flying around here have been bad.

Which other than your own do you think were good?

Then clearly, if a group of EatingAnimalsisRightists showed up and firebombed your house for your arguments endangering their preferred lifestyle, it's fine.

no. merely having a group and a view justifies nothing. arguments do - specifically good arguments. shit, that was directly stated in the bit you quoted.

Which other than your own do you think were good?

i haven't really made all that many positive arguments in this thread. mainly i've been pointing out the giant gaping holes in those made by others. people have just been assuming my views, sometimes hilariously so. for example, i bet you would never have guessed that i am, at this very moment, eating bacon.

it is hypocritical. however, you said that her view, combined with my trivially true statement that the use of force is sometimes just, entailed,

which just simply doesn't follow either from my statement, her views, or some combination of them.

Then you are again, misunderstanding. Or perhaps you do, and are tying in additional events.

Fact. Ingrid Newkirk opposes the discovery and production of all animal byproducts, including medical items. This includes insulin.

Fact. She supports acts or groups that act, to destroy the means of production and discovery of animal byproducts, again, insulin included.

Conclusion #1: Ingrid Newkirk does not want anyone to make, or use animal byproducts.

Fact. Ingrid Newkirk opposes any possible AIDS cure if derived from animal research. (google Ingrid Newkirk and aids cure)

Fact. AIDS is considered to be a pandemic disease, with high mortality rates and an estimated +30 million infected, and already an estimated 2.8 million dead from it.

Conclusion #2: Ingrid Newkirk would rather see millions die from AIDS than be cured by a vaccine derived from animal research.

Conclusion #3: Ingrid Newkirk would support destruction of medical research that could cure AIDS, condemning millions of people to die from AIDS.

Fact. Ingrid Newkirk is diabetic, and uses insulin to prevent going into diabetic shock.

Fact. Insulin is derived from pigs. An animal byproduct.

Conclusion #4: Ingrid Newkirk lacks conviction in applying her position to herself.

Summary: Ingrid Newkirk doesn't care if millions of people die because of what she supports. As long as she isn't affected by it.

Hypothesis: Forcibly withholding all insulin stocks from Ingrid Newkirk, justified by conclusions 1 and 2 will either result in her withdrawing her statements in the hopes of continuing insulin intake, or choose to die from diabetic shock.

Probable Outcome: Ingrid Newkirk will temporarily withdraw her statements in hopes of continued insulin supply, and then recant said statements.

And what determines sentience hmm? Why not expand it to all living beings? Then we can accuse your immune system of incalculable genocide of billions of germs.

Either something can feel pain or it can't. There's no middle ground like with intellegence.

And by your logic, there is no superior organism between a human, an ant and some fungus.

Exactly. But ants, fungi and germs don't need rights because they're not sentient.

Then you are again, misunderstanding. Or perhaps you do, and are tying in additional events.

Fact. Ingrid Newkirk opposes the discovery and production of all animal byproducts, including medical items. This includes insulin.

Fact. She supports acts or groups that act, to destroy the means of production and discovery of animal byproducts, again, insulin included.

Conclusion #1: Ingrid Newkirk does not want anyone to make, or use animal byproducts.

Fact. Ingrid Newkirk opposes any possible AIDS cure if derived from animal research. (google Ingrid Newkirk and aids cure)

Fact. AIDS is considered to be a pandemic disease, with high mortality rates and an estimated +30 million infected, and already an estimated 2.8 million dead from it.

Conclusion #2: Ingrid Newkirk would rather see millions die from AIDS than be cured by a vaccine derived from animal research.

Conclusion #3: Ingrid Newkirk would support destruction of medical research that could cure AIDS, condemning millions of people to die from AIDS.

Fact. Ingrid Newkirk is diabetic, and uses insulin to prevent going into diabetic shock.

Fact. Insulin is derived from pigs. An animal byproduct.

Conclusion #4: Ingrid Newkirk lacks conviction in applying her position to herself.

Summary: Ingrid Newkirk doesn't care if millions of people die because of what she supports. As long as she isn't affected by it.

Hypothesis: Forcibly withholding all insulin stocks from Ingrid Newkirk, justified by conclusions 1 and 2 will either result in her withdrawing her statements in the hopes of continuing insulin intake, or choose to die from diabetic shock.

Probable Outcome: Ingrid Newkirk will temporarily withdraw her statements in hopes of continued insulin supply, and then recant said statements.

oh, i see. it was all an elaborate ploy to get someone who isn't here to reveal themselves as a hypocrite. well played, well played.
of course, personal hypocrisy doesn't actually demonstrate the wrongness of an argument...

and why you felt this somehow fit in with my argument remains a mystery. perhaps you mistook me for ingrid newkirk?

Either something can feel pain or it can't. There's no middle ground like with intellegence.

of course, there are degrees of pain that even a single being can feel, and not all beings seem to experience the same pain in the exact same way (some people have 'high pain tolerance' for example). so i suspect that it really isn't that black and white either.

no. merely having a group and a view justifies nothing. arguments do - specifically good arguments. shit, that was directly stated in the bit you quoted.

But ultimately, that is a completely subjective matter.

My girlfriend's a vegitarian :fluffle: and she hates PETA so not all vegitarians are crazy "I'm a gonna free all the animals from the zoo and the baby eaten by the lions has it coming" kind of people. I honestly think PETA is no more moral than any other oranization that supports terrorism. It's worse in this case because its domestic terrorism. :mp5::mp5::sniper::upyours:

i haven't really made all that many positive arguments in this thread. mainly i've been pointing out the giant gaping holes in those made by others. people have just been assuming my views, sometimes hilariously so. for example, i bet you would never have guessed that i am, at this very moment, eating bacon.

True, I never would have guessed that.

About the blue shirt guy... lol. He was doing an open rescue of six piglets from a factory farm in Spain ... without a mask and in open daylight too.

Video of open rescue
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brfJm1dEJk4)

Note: This particular open-rescue was non-violent.


While I agree with your assessment, he did say he supported ELF, not ALF. They are, I believe, two different organizations?

The ELF is an organization, the ALF is not. Not that I endorse them...

PS. FUCK PETA! They really make the animal-rights "movement" look like all it is is a bunch of dumbshits throwing red paint on people and a bunch of media-grabbing sexist campaigns that have nothing to do with the plight of animals whatsoever. PETA has also given everyone the impression that animal-rights means happy-meat. #%#$%
And asian-looking sex dolls... not only sexist but fucking racist as well!

It wasn't mine. A friend of mine got it and put out the call, and those that helped would be fed on the spot. He actually had two, as I hadn't seen the second one in the back of his truck due to his tonneau cover. The herd has grown far too large in recent years, and there's been a problem with deer starving due to the scarcity of food so the state increased the amount of tags (doe and buck) that it's sold this year.

Ah, I see.

I know the feeling. In CT, if the DEP doesn't keep an eye on things, the deer population gets to be a problem here (they actually had an out of season shoot at one point a few years ago, to cull the population). I was out delivering mail on Wednesday, and saw 4 deer on the side of the road, in broad daylight. They weren't even phased as I approached, and it took me honking the horn and flashing my headlights to get them to move off the road and into the woods.

I don't endorse either PETA or the ALF but I think there is a myth going around here that the ALF is an "organization" and somehow PETA are "funding" them. It's not an organization. It's just a name that people who engage in direct action against animal-exploiters use.

Again, I do not endorse what they do but calling animal-rescues (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brfJm1dEJk4) "terrorism" is going a bit far (ecspecially coming from George Bush and his cronies).

Now for why I don't like the ALF. Many activists in the ALF think violence is 'radical' but in fact it is quite conservative as using violence isn't exactly something new and it doesn't address the root cause of exploitation. Radical means addressing the root cause. Instead, it offers the person committing violent acts temporary, personal satisfaction and creates a culture of hero worship while alienating the actual cause.

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/4300/cerdos012xt7.jpg

That's a great picture for the authorities to use, to find out the identities of the thieves responsible for stealing those 6 piglets. Also, the video has some pretty good shots of the criminals faces.

That's a great picture for the authorities to use, to find out the identities of the thieves responsible for stealing those 6 piglets. Also, the video has some pretty good shots of the criminals faces.

Stealing? :headbang: STEALING? It's only "stealing" if you think those innocent pigs are property, commodities and a means to human ends rather than the living, breathing sentient beings that they are. ;)

PS. FUCK PETA! They really make the animal-rights "movement" look like all it is is a bunch of dumbshits throwing red paint on people and a bunch of media-grabbing sexist campaigns that have nothing to do with the plight of animals whatsoever.

What tactics do you advise?

I mean, small-scale non-violent animal liberations are hardly ultimately more effective than the "violent" ones... and you've explicitly distanced yourself from the reformist animal welfare approach that might be politically viable through non-direct action means. If you also reject the sort of loud, public militancy of organizations like PETA, what's your alternative?

Stealing? :headbang: STEALING? It's only "stealing" if you think those innocent pigs are property, commodities and a means to human ends rather than the living, breathing sentient beings that they are. ;)

But they are property, a commodity, and a means to human ends. And while pigs may be sentient, they aren't sapient or self aware.

True story. I used to work on a farm that had pigs. One of the staples of the pigs diet was table scraps (AKA slop). I've seen pigs eat bacon and pork chop scraps (of course, depending on the day of the week, that may have been before or after they pissed and/or shit in the slop trough).

What tactics do you advise?

I mean, small-scale non-violent animal liberations are hardly ultimately more effective than the "violent" ones... and you've explicitly distanced yourself from the reformist animal welfare approach that might be politically viable through non-direct action means. If you also reject the sort of loud, public militancy of organizations like PETA, what's your alternative?

To start a real social and political movement from the grassroots. A start would be to promote veganism, to reduce demand for animal-products in the first place.
To promote no-kill shelters. To stop promoting things that are making animal-exploitation more efficient like what PETA is doing.

If animals ceased to be treated as property, they would cease to be exploited.


Here is a quote from Prof. Gary Francione:

Veganism is the application of the principle of abolition to one’s own life. I often encounter animal advocates who claim to be in favor or animal rights and to want to abolish animal exploitation, but who continue to eat animal products. I regard this as a form of moral schizophrenia. An animal “rights” advocate who is not a vegan is no different from someone who claims to be opposed to human slavery but who still owns slaves. In any event, it make no sense to claim to embrace the rights or abolitionist position, and not to accept that veganism is the only morally consistent way to take immediate action to make that happen at least in one’s own life. Veganism is the rejection of the property status of nonhumans and the recognition that nonhumans have inherent value.

There are some animal advocates who claim that veganism is a matter of “personal philosophy” and should not be identified as a baseline principle of the rights movement. They claim that it is “elitist” to insist on veganism as a baseline principle. But such claims are nonsense. If the animal rights movement cannot take a principled position on an activity that results in the suffering and death of millions of animals for no reason other than that we enjoy the taste of their flesh and their products, then the movement can take no principled stand on any institutional exploitation. And there is nothing more elitist than eating animal products, which involves the unjustifiable oppression and exploitation of nonhumans. Animal advocates who are not vegans have no right to accuse anyone else of being an animal "exploiter." Although it is impossible to avoid animal products altogether-there are, for instance, animal products in many road surfaces-if you are not a vegan, you are an animal exploiter !

Veganism and abolitionist education provide a practical and incremental strategy both in terms of reducing animal suffering now and in terms of building a movement in the future that will be able to get legislation more meaningful than the welfarist reforms that are promoted by the large national organizations. In the late-1980s the animal advocacy community in the United States decided very deliberately to pursue a welfarist agenda. If instead a substantial portion of movement resources were invested in vegan education and advocacy, there would in my estimation be at least 250,000 more vegans than there are today. That is a very conservative estimate given the tens of millions of dollars that has been expended by animal advocacy groups to promote welfarist legislation and initiatives. I maintain that having 250,000 more vegans would reduce suffering more by decreasing demand for animal products-and help to build a political and economic base that is absolutely essential and necessary for more pervasive social change that is in turn the necessary predicate for legal change-than all of the welfarist "successes" put together and multiplied ten-fold.

I also disagree with those who believe that violence is the way to go. In my view, the animal rights movement should represent the ideals of non-violence. We should respect all life. We will never change the world if we use violence. We are in the mess we are today because humans think that violence is justifiable. The problem is violence ; it is not the solution.

Ultimately, the animal-rights movement should just forget about PETA and other large cultish organizations because animal-rights and PETA have two completely different goals.

But they are property, a commodity, and a means to human ends. And while pigs may be sentient, they aren't sapient or self aware.

True story. I used to work on a farm that had pigs. One of the staples of the pigs diet was table scraps (AKA slop). I've seen pigs eat bacon and pork chop scraps (of course, depending on the day of the week, that may have been before or after they pissed and/or shit in the slop trough).


Pigs are intelligent and have been placed fourth on the intelligence list (humans, primates, dolphins/whales, pigs). Because of their high level of intelligence, pigs can become bored (in farms) and are often destructive when finding ways to entertain themselves. However, it really doesn't matter how intelligent they are, they're sentient and sentience should be the only requirement for full entry into the moral community. They have the capacity to feel pain and suffer. They have their own natural desires.
There is no justification for not taking the suffering of another sentient being into consideration.

To start a real social and political movement from the grassroots. A start would be to promote veganism, to reduce demand for animal-products in the first place.

And while you're gathering your vegans, animals are still being imprisoned and slaughtered... what are you going to do about it? Changes in one's personal lifestyle hardly solve the large-scale problem, and the resistance to veganism on the part of the mainstream population is extremely intense... the reason you get so many supporters of animal rights who are not also vegans is because, at least in a society like ours, it is (or is perceived as) a rather difficult diet to adopt, far more difficult than participation in the sorts of political action that might actually accomplish more.

For that matter, how are you going to approach the objective of increasing the number of vegans? What are you going to do? PETA advocates veganism, and many of its efforts are aimed at promoting that or aspects of that... but you reject its methods.

To promote no-kill shelters.

Is euthanasia really worse than the horrific conditions animals at shelters might otherwise endure?

oh, i see. it was all an elaborate ploy to get someone who isn't here to reveal themselves as a hypocrite. well played, well played.
of course, personal hypocrisy doesn't actually demonstrate the wrongness of an argument...

and why you felt this somehow fit in with my argument remains a mystery. perhaps you mistook me for ingrid newkirk?

You really don't get it do you?

The idea isn't to demonstrate how wrong or right her views are. The idea is to force her to live with those views, and see just how strong her convictions are when it's her life on the line.

It would cut down a lot of stupidity if people were forced to suffer the consequences of their personal hypocrisy.

Pigs are intelligent and have been placed fourth on the intelligence list (humans, primates, dolphins/whales, pigs). Because of their high level of intelligence, pigs can become bored (in farms) and are often destructive when finding ways to entertain themselves. However, it really doesn't matter how intelligent they are, they're sentient and sentience should be the only requirement for full entry into the moral community. They have the capacity to feel pain and suffer. They have their own natural desires.
There is no justification for not taking the suffering of another sentient being into consideration.

Honestly, how intelligent can an animal be that shits or pisses in the same place they eat and sleep? And while I do agree that no animal should be mistreated (abused) regardless of their sapience or self awareness, animals that aren't sapient or self aware are IMO fair game for the dinner plate.

As to your statement, "However, it really doesn't matter how intelligent they are, they're sentient and sentience should be the only requirement for full entry into the moral community", I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about here. What moral community are you referring to?

And while you're gathering your vegans, animals are still being imprisoned and slaughtered... what are you going to do about it?
Of course I'm not opposed to improving the conditions of animals, but it isn't something the animal-rights movement should be advocating.
The more people that stop eating consuming animals, the less demand there will be for animal products therefore less animals would be bred for human consumption in the first place.


the reason you get so many supporters of animal rights who are not also vegans is because, at least in a society like ours, it is (or is perceived as) a rather difficult diet to adopt, far more difficult than participation in the sorts of political action that might actually accomplish more.

For that matter, how are you going to approach the objective of increasing the number of vegans? What are you going to do?

By simply being vegan in our everyday lives. If people see healthy vegans and how easy it is, they'll realize we're not the stereotypical skinning people they think we are.

Who says we have to get national media attention to be effective? Who says we need media attention at all? If we're all working in our little areas around the country, we are spreading the word. To use an extremely tired expression, I think we need to start thinking outside the box when it comes to outreach - we don't need a national organization, and we don't need a ton of media attention.

We need an alternative way of pooling our resources and skills to make a difference - but we're not tied to a hierarchical structure that imposes things from the top. We all get together and share our experiences, our literature, and our education, and we educate others about veganism.


PETA advocates veganism, and many of its efforts are aimed at promoting that or aspects of that...


That may be true but whether PETA has done some good (i.e., PETA literature has caused some to become vegan) really is not the issue. The same thing could be said about Singer's Animal Liberation. There are people who became vegan when they looked at the photos in Singer's book. They did not even bother to read the text, which would have revealed that Singer was not arguing for veganism, but sought only better treatment of those cognitively inferior (in Singer's view) nonhumans we exploit.

Moreover, there are plenty of people who did not become vegan as a result of PETA's very (and intentionally) confused message about veganism and its distinction between vegetarianism and veganism.

The real issue is whether PETA, as an organization, is part of the problem of animal exploitation or part of the solution to that problem. Consider just a few of the things about which there can be no serious dispute:

PETA promotes campaigns that are embraced by corporate animal exploiters, and gives awards to animal exploiters like Temple Grandin - a slaughterhouse designer.. (http://www.peta.org/feat/proggy/2004/winners.html#visionary)

PETA has made "deals" with some of the worst animal exploiters on the planet. For example, after McDonald's agreed to require that its suppliers obtain flesh from slaughterhouses approved by Temple Grandin, PETA declared that McDonald's was "leading the way" in fast-food-animal welfare reform.

PETA has thoroughly trivialized the animal rights movement by turning the issue of animal exploitation into one large, self-promoting media stunt, and has made sexism a constant theme of its animal campaigns.

PETA constantly campaigns for welfare reforms that will do nothing but make animal exploitation more efficient and profitable for exploiters. For example, PETA's campaign for "controlled-atmosphere killing" (GASSING) of poultry is explicitly based on the economic benefits that will be enjoyed by producers and consumers.

It is disturbing to see the extent to which PETA uses sexism in its campaigns, literature, and events. Speciesism is closely tied to sexism and other forms of discrimination against humans. As long as we continue treating women like meat, we are going to continue treating nonhumans as meat. It is high time that serious animal advocates make clear to PETA that its sexism is destructive and counterproductive.

As Mohandas Gandhi maintained, the most powerful force with which to oppose injustice is not violence but non-cooperation. There is no better way to refuse to cooperate with the exploitation of nonhumans than to eliminate it from your own life through veganism and work to educate others to do the same. It is disturbing that PETA spends much more time criticizing those who oppose the welfarist approach than it does those who will only marginalize the animal issue further by associating it with violence.



Is euthanasia really worse than the horrific conditions animals at shelters might otherwise endure?
Euthanasia is a misleading and incorrect term here. Euthanasia involves a death that is in the interest of an animal, and death is never in the interest of a healthy nonhuman. PETA does not euthanize healthy animals ; it kills them.

Read "Redemption - The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America" by Nathan Winograd. He found out that even in the most conservative town in the the most conservative part of the United States, people were open to the idea of helping out at and adopting animals from no-kill shelters. Also listen to his interview with VeganFreak Radio. (http://veganfreakradio.com/index.php?id=127)

PETA has opposed the No-Kill movement and has been responsible for the deaths of thousands of healthy nonhumans that have come under its control, choosing to spend its millions on such projects as running naked with the bulls in Spain, rather than providing care for those animals and putting resources into an aggressive adoption program.

As to your statement, "However, it really doesn't matter how intelligent they are, they're sentient and sentience should be the only requirement for full entry into the moral community", I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about here. What moral community are you referring to?

The moral community is defined as the network of those to whom we recognize an ethical connection through the demands of justice, the bonds of compassion, or a sense of obligation.

Speciesism is wrong because, like racism, sexism, and homophobia, it excludes sentient beings from full membership in the moral community based on an irrelevant characteristic. Race, sex, sexual orientation, and species are all irrelevant to the capacity to be harmed.

I also want to add that as long as animals are seen as property with no intrinsic value, reforms would only protect the interests of animals to an extent - until they interfere with the profitability of the company. Sometimes these reforms are designed to make animal exploitation more efficient. For example, why do we stun animals before slaughter? Because if we didn't, animals would move around while they're being hung up on their hind legs and break bones. Thus the "quality" of the meat would be lower and less profitable for the company.

Animal-rights is not about giving animals the right to drive or the right to education - that's absurd. It refers to the right not to be treated as property. Veganism is the application of the rejection of the property status of animals in one's daily life.

Either something can feel pain or it can't. There's no middle ground like with intellegence.

Some humans can't feel pain, what do you propose we do with them?

The moral community is defined as the network of those to whom we recognize an ethical connection through the demands of justice, the bonds of compassion, or a sense of obligation.

Speciesism is wrong because, like racism, sexism, and homophobia, it excludes sentient beings from full membership in the moral community based on an irrelevant characteristic. Race, sex, sexual orientation, and species are all irrelevant to the capacity to be harmed.

I also want to add that as long as animals are seen as property with no intrinsic value, reforms would only protect the interests of animals to an extent - until they interfere with the profitability of the company. Sometimes these reforms are designed to make animal exploitation more efficient. For example, why do we stun animals before slaughter? Because if we didn't, animals would move around while they're being hung up on their hind legs and break bones. Thus the "quality" of the meat would be lower and less profitable for the company.

Animal-rights is not about giving animals the right to drive or the right to education - that's absurd. It refers to the right not to be treated as property. Veganism is the application of the rejection of the property status of animals in one's daily life.

The thing is, animals are property (domesticated animals, anyways). Animals that are used as food are excluded from the moral community because while they are sentient (they can use sensory organs, and have the ability to sense and feel pain), they are not sapient (they don't have the ability to act with judgment or the ability to reason).

Stunning an animal before slaughter has as much to do with safety and reducing the animal's suffering (by preventing the animal from breaking bones) as protecting the quality of the meat.

Oh, and I'm not a vegan. I'm an omnivore. The human body is designed to be able to eat meat and vegetables, hence the reason I have canine teeth, which are good for ripping through meat, and an intestine length of approximately 25 feet. Herbivores have much longer intestine length, to better process plant matter(for example, a cow's small intestine is approximately 20 times its body length).

While I agree with your assessment, he did say he supported ELF, not ALF. They are, I believe, two different organizations?

That FBI article I provided a link to also mentions ELF as being a domestic terrorist organization.

The moral community is defined as the network of those to whom we recognize an ethical connection through the demands of justice, the bonds of compassion, or a sense of obligation.

Are you saying that animals should be held to the same demands of justice and obligation as humans?

Of course I'm not opposed to improving the conditions of animals, but it isn't something the animal-rights movement should be advocating.

Why not?

"We believe that using animals for meat is immoral, but if we can't stop you, at least treat them better while raising them." That's a perfectly reasonable approach... and seems much morally preferable to the alternative of "if we can't get everything, we'll take nothing."

By simply being vegan in our everyday lives. If people see healthy vegans and how easy it is, they'll realize we're not the stereotypical skinning people they think we are.

People generally know that some people are vegans and are fairly healthy nonetheless. That doesn't mean they'll be inclined to do it themselves.

Who says we have to get national media attention to be effective? Who says we need media attention at all? If we're all working in our little areas around the country, we are spreading the word.

On a very small scale at which nothing will happen.

There are two hundred eighty million people in this country. You're not going to reach the number of them you'll need with small-scale organization... especially since the people you'll reach most often will be those already interested, which is just preaching to the choir and not very productive.

To use an extremely tired expression, I think we need to start thinking outside the box when it comes to outreach - we don't need a national organization, and we don't need a ton of media attention.

And if you're lucky, you'll convert one or two of your friends.

We need an alternative way of pooling our resources and skills to make a difference - but we're not tied to a hierarchical structure that imposes things from the top. We all get together and share our experiences, our literature, and our education, and we educate others about veganism.

You don't need a "hierarchical structure that imposes things from the top", but you need publicity, you need attention--and lots of it.

They did not even bother to read the text, which would have revealed that Singer was not arguing for veganism, but sought only better treatment of those cognitively inferior (in Singer's view) nonhumans we exploit.

Singer maintains that the interests of humans and of non-humans, all else being equal, should receive equal weight.

He does point out that, according to present science, all else is not, in fact, equal: we have every reason to expect that human sentience exists at a higher level than non-human sentience (with some exceptions). We have more "advanced" emotional lives, for instance. Furthermore, we have the cognitive capacity to have a sophisticated concept of time, and thus to have future-oriented preferences in a way animals don't... which means, even if we treat human and non-human feelings equally, we still should be more concerned for human death than for non-human death.

Of course, this does not excuse the vast majority of human exploitation of non-humans... in fact, even the sort of utilitarian consideration Singer gives to animals probably obligates us to veganism in food consumption, protection of wildlife habitats, and the like.

Moreover, there are plenty of people who did not become vegan as a result of PETA's very (and intentionally) confused message about veganism and its distinction between vegetarianism and veganism.

That's right. PETA understands that people are not going to become vegan at the drop of a pin. Vegetarianism, for a variety of reasons, is an easier and more reachable target.

Since it's better than nothing, why not?

PETA promotes campaigns that are embraced by corporate animal exploiters, and gives awards to animal exploiters like Temple Grandin - a slaughterhouse designer.. (http://www.peta.org/feat/proggy/2004/winners.html#visionary)

...for designing slaughterhouses in a way that improved the conditions of animals.

I wouldn't have done the same, but I'm not about to blame them for welcoming progress where it occurs... however half-way (qaurter-way, eighth-way, whatever) it is.

PETA has made "deals" with some of the worst animal exploiters on the planet. For example, after McDonald's agreed to require that its suppliers obtain flesh from slaughterhouses approved by Temple Grandin, PETA declared that McDonald's was "leading the way" in fast-food-animal welfare reform.

And wasn't it?

Obviously it's still participating in the mass slaughter of animals for human consumption... but improvements are still improvements.

PETA has thoroughly trivialized the animal rights movement by turning the issue of animal exploitation into one large, self-promoting media stunt,

Again, publicity. They are, I believe, the largest and most well-funded of their kind.

and has made sexism a constant theme of its animal campaigns.

Maybe, but this is really not the main issue here.

PETA constantly campaigns for welfare reforms that will do nothing but make animal exploitation more efficient and profitable for exploiters. For example, PETA's campaign for "controlled-atmosphere killing" (GASSING) of poultry is explicitly based on the economic benefits that will be enjoyed by producers and consumers.

Yes, that's right--they like to remind people that they can profit from better treatment of animals.

On principle, of course, we should take the interests of animals into consideration regardless of whether or not we benefit from it. But realistically, appealing to people's self-interest as well as their sense of moral obligation may accomplish the objective more effectively... so all the better.

It is disturbing to see the extent to which PETA uses sexism in its campaigns, literature, and events. Speciesism is closely tied to sexism and other forms of discrimination against humans. As long as we continue treating women like meat, we are going to continue treating nonhumans as meat.

Using nude images of women for publicity is not the same as imprisoning, killing, and eating them. I understand the reasoning behind the analogy, but you're stretching it a bit far.

As Mohandas Gandhi maintained, the most powerful force with which to oppose injustice is not violence but non-cooperation.

The most powerful force is mass political action.

Small-scale purist organizing isn't going to cut it.

Euthanasia is a misleading and incorrect term here. Euthanasia involves a death that is in the interest of an animal, and death is never in the interest of a healthy nonhuman.

I wouldn't even say that for healthy humans... not if "health" is defined narrowly as simple physical health, anyway.

Surely years of imprisonment in horrific, cramped conditions is worse than death? At least sometimes?

When I see PETA I can't help but think of King Arthur looking the black Knight in the eye and saying "Your a Looney!"

But ultimately, that is a completely subjective matter.

even assuming that moral premises are subjective, that still allows us to pick out truly bad arguments - arguments where the conclusion just doesn't follow from the premises. and, of course, anyone holding that the truth of any valid ethical argument is completely subjective seems to be committing themselves to the position that whatever anyone does, provided that it actually follows from their moral premises, is true/just/equal in value to everything else. in which case, it is difficult to see where the place to stand for condemnation is.

on the other hand, things can be subjective - as in, located within subjects - and still partake in objectivity and normativity. for example, a book looking red (under certain conditions to beings such as us). if i say this book is red, and you say the same book is blue, one of us is wrong, despite the fact that the appearance of color takes place entirely within our own heads.

and with moral premises, it seems to me that we can and do have the ability to show that some of them are wrong and some are more plausibly right, at least sometimes. this is related to certain basic facts about the kind of beings we are, and what it takes for us to live as we do - our rationality, sociability, empathy, etc.

even assuming that moral premises are subjective, that still allows us to pick out truly bad arguments - arguments where the conclusion just doesn't follow from the premises. and, of course, anyone holding that the truth of any valid ethical argument is completely subjective seems to be committing themselves to the position that whatever anyone does, provided that it actually follows from their moral premises, is true/just/equal in value to everything else. in which case, it is difficult to see where the place to stand for condemnation is.

on the other hand, things can be subjective - as in, located within subjects - and still partake in objectivity and normativity. for example, a book looking red (under certain conditions to beings such as us). if i say this book is red, and you say the same book is blue, one of us is wrong, despite the fact that the appearance of color takes place entirely within our own heads.

and with moral premises, it seems to me that we can and do have the ability to show that some of them are wrong and some are more plausibly right, at least sometimes. this is related to certain basic facts about the kind of beings we are, and what it takes for us to live as we do - our rationality, sociability, empathy, etc.

Thusly going back to what I said before, the only arguments you see as valid are your own, or those that you personally agree with (or at least that's the impression you've given me)

Thusly going back to what I said before, the only arguments you see as valid are your own, or those that you personally agree with (or at least that's the impression you've given me)

how so? lots of arguments i disagree with are valid. i guess that you are probably using 'valid' as a synonym for 'good', which is different. but even there, how have you gotten the idea that i'm not willing to even entertain arguments whose conclusions i don't already agree with, or that i take mere personal agreement with a conclusion as a sign of a good argument?