When Good Causes Go Wrong: 7 Utterly Outrageous PETA Stunts
Image: striatic
Let’s pretend we have a mutual friend. We’ll called him Peter.
There’s a lot to like about Peter: he’s deeply concerned about his impact on the environment, he donates time to local community projects, he’s thoughtful, charismatic and likeable. But there’s something odd about Peter, something deeply Out To Lunch – and every so often, this weirdness springs out of him. He builds a floodlit shrine out of recycled credit cards outside the local Walmart and surrounds it with pictures of flowers and animals. He paints all the streetlights green within a 20-mile radius. He throws miniature wooden oil-derricks at cars as he cycles to work. In short, Peter would be an admirable, inspiring pillar of the community…if he didn’t behave like an utter fruitcake.
It’s how we feel about People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Their investigations into animal testing and cruelty deserve our respect and our support. PETA’s principles? We admire them. PETA’s methods? Well, not so much. The organization has run more stunts than Evel Knievel – and while it’s always a blast to see what heights of lunacy they’ve scaled recently, we rather wish they wouldn’t. (Their work is just too important to be discredited by something ill-judged).
With that in mind, let’s look at 7 of their most notoriously awful publicity stunts.
Image: XWRN
A Grave Error: Playing Chicken With KFC (January 2008)
Upon discovering where Kentucky Fried Chicken founder Colonel Harland Sanders (above) is buried, PETA did what any of us might have done in a heartbeat, which was to purchase a plot of land within the cemetary, erect a fake headstone dedicated to someone who is in fact alive and well, and inscribe a poem on the stone which secretly spells out “KFC Tortures Birds“. Unsurprisingly this ruffled a few feathers: KFC described it as “a disgustingly disrespectful way to disgrace the resting place of the departed”. We sympathize. (Still, you have to admire their pluck).
Bull in a china shop: Winning New Friends in India (January 2008)
“PETA blindfolds Ghandi.” There’s a headline to make you spit your drink. Bypassing diplomatic channels and cultural respect, PETA went straight for the jugular in their protest against the Tamil practice of jallikatu or bull-taunting. While everyone was looking the other way, three PETA protesters leapt up and flung a blindfold round a statue of Mahatma Ghandi in Coimbatore’s Ghandi Park. Local authorities took a dim view, throwing the book at PETA and blaming them for “creating religious ill-feeling, defaming the national leader, trespassing and also [infingements of the] Tamil Nadu Open Places Prevention of Disfigurement Act.” Meanwhile, the real issue (and there is a real issue) gets associated with fringe activists. Way to bring it to the table, guys.
Image: tanakawho
The Fur Flies: Coats Sent To Iraq and Given To The Homeless (2004 to Present)
While they’re most famous for their anti-fur stance, PETA have adopted the practice of giving away the fur that is donated to them. In 2004 this included fur coats sent to suffering people in Iraq. A similar measure – one deplored by other anti-fur protest groups – is PETA’s “fur kitchens” which give away coats to homeless people. You could argue this is a caring, humanitarian measure – until you factor in the following quote from PETA’s President Ingrid Newkirk: “When the homeless are wearing fur, you know fur has hit rock bottom.”
Streaking Ahead: PETA’s Naked Ambition
One of PETA’s trademarks is nudity. Nary a month goes by without somebody famous donning their birthday suit to highlight the cause célèbre of PETA vs. fur clothing. It’s a bit of fun, a bit of titillation and a lot of exposure (as it were) for the person stripping off for the public eye. It’s expected of them – and when it doesn’t quite happen, as in the recent case of Amanda Beard, it raises eyebrows. But for potential eyebrow height, it’s difficult to top the sight of naked PETA members lying in flower-lined coffins to protest against Avian Flu. However, this manages it.
Image: OiMax
Milking Controversy: PETA’s Ice-Cream Boob (September 2008)
Three months back, Swiss restaurant owner Hans Locher announced he would be preparing dishes using human breast milk. Spotting a bandwagon with room to sit, PETA then sent a public letter to Ben And Jerry’s asking why they can’t follow suit by replacing the cow’s milk in their ice cream with human milk. Suspecting that their sales might suffer, B & J’s refused (known as the Ross Geller response).
Interning with PETA: It’s A Wrap (June 2008)
To work for PETA, you have to be ready to take life on the chin. In the case of an intern and a volunteer in June of this year, you have to be ready to be liberally spattered with fake blood, shrink-wrapped to a cardboard sheet and endure an hour in the baking (80 degrees+) midday sun. No animals were harmed during the production of this stunt, but volunteer Shawn Herbold noted that she was “in pain and feeling nauseated” halfway through her shift. Some people just love to complain.
Image: MikeLicht:NotionsCapital.com
$1 Million: A Chance to Shmeat New People? (2008 onwards)
Taking a firm stance against the way animal meat is produced for consumption (and we’re right beside PETA on this), the organization has offered a $1 million prize to anyone who can create vat-grown meat as an alternative (er…PETA, you go that way and we’ll go this way). It’s claimed that it will act as a catalyst for developing truly viable in vitro “shmeat”. Salon nicely outlines why this is sloppy thinking…and anyway, isn’t it yet another example of the curse of Things That Look Like Other Things?
PETA – please, enough.
(Oh, we’re not naïve. Articles like this one are exactly why PETA members make fools of themselves – all to get their message across. But do you think antics like these are helping that message – or hindering it?)
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Genetically (Com)Modified Animals
XHello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic. I’m a vegetarian, but I’m
Peta’s Fail Whale
XHello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic. People for the Ethical Treatment
5 (More) Utterly Outrageous PETA Stunts
XHello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.Our delightful friends at PETA
PETA Calls For Higher Insurance Rates for Meat Eaters
XHello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic. Ever the agent of controversy,
|
Bookmark |
97 Comments
December 21st, 2008 at 9:08 pm
PeTA are idiots. Hypocritical ones at that. For every time that they do some good, they undo it by killing stray animals and putting them in dumpsters.
Here in Norfolk, Virginia, we get to see all their dumb stunts. If there is no chance for a publicity stunt, then PeTA has no interest in that issue. To be succinct, PeTA is the punchline to thousands of jokes.
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:29 am
Couldn’t agree more, Jeff. Thanks for commenting.
December 22nd, 2008 at 9:19 am
Almost a terrorist organization, but not quite there yet.
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:05 am
I think PETA comes off as not serious about what they stand for when it comes down to the stupid stunts like these and it does hinder the message. They either need to find something else to do or get real/serious ads out if they truly want to make a difference and not make themselves look like a highschool joker group like they too often do.
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:08 am
That Showtime show with Penn/Teller had some good insight on the whole PETA thing. The one issue I brought from it was something about how the VP of PETA was a diabetic and she was taking medicine that was saving her life that was directly tested/perfected on animals. Kind of hyprocritical if you ask me…Also, they apparently support PETA members that could be considered “terrorists” (yes, that is a strong word)
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:42 am
Perhaps at the time PETA started out, they needed a really harsh, shocking message to get through to people. Because it wasn’t until somewhat recently that vegetarianism was considered a mainstream option (for many decades it was something very fringe, considered so unhealthy and bizarre by the mainstream). But now, vegetarianism, even veganism, is becoming mainstream, with raw foods cafe’s popping up around the country…people are becoming more aware about ethical animal treatment and also about reducing or avoiding meat. Therefore, PETA’s shocking tactics no longer serve the cause. They need to evolve.
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:03 am
I always thought the “Holocaust on your Plate” campaign was just horrible. Totally insensitive. Man I could go on for hours about PETA but won’t.
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:10 am
John Whorfin and Chris:
The “terrorist” label is quite hilariously ubiquitous these days.
And yet there is one application of the term that is typically overlooked: If you eat meat produced by factory farms, you are truly a “terrorist” in the most essential meaning of the term. The billions of animals factory farmed each year in the United States alone live their entire lives in fear. Confined, drugged, malnourished, mutilated, tortured, and slaughtered creatures — terrified and suffering from beginning to end — are what you support when you consume commercial meat.
We can argue about whether or not PETA’s tactics are as effective as they could be, but we should all recognize the pure evil of what they’re fighting. Any tactic is better than sitting on the sidelines and allowing the status quo to flourish.
Chris — FYI, Penn and Teller are libertarian ideologues. It is an easy philosophy to rationalize one’s way into, as it inordinately amplifies individualist concerns. What I’m saying is, Penn and Teller want their meat and, like little children, cannot handle anyone who confronts their decisions and calls them immoral. In my experience, nothing gets the libertarian’s goat like the proclamation of (non-libertarian) universalized moral imperatives.
To JeffConn and Sarah Ost:
Hypocrisy does not invalidate the point a person is trying to make. A serial killer can hypocritically argue that discretionary killing is morally unacceptable, without being incorrect in his argument.
None of us is perfect. But some of us try harder.
Dan’s last blog post..The Whale Warriors: Excerpt 1
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:17 am
Ian, your concern about PETA’s insensitivity is rather funny in a tragic sort of way. The Holocaust was a terrible event, and PETA obviously recognizes as much. They do not diminish it by tying it to current events — rather, they draw an extremely appropriate analogy to they way we currently treat farmed animals.
I would like to hear your reasons for thinking the analogy fails.
Dan’s last blog post..The Whale Warriors: Excerpt 1
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:26 am
You missed one of the more offensive ad campaigns: Got Autism?
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:38 am
Dan, thank you for the point about logic. You’re right; false dichotomy. Still, I think PETA could find much better ways to be effective.
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:56 am
Think of the horror of the living conditions and the slaughterhouse the animals have to look forward to and the antics of PETA seem trivial!
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Dan,
A man stands before a man and a cow with a rifle and offers you the option, either he kills the man or he kills the cow. It’s your choice, what do you choose. Just about any sane individual would protect the life of the man, as human life is considered more valuable.
Holocaust analogy failed. The value of millions of human lives is more important than the lives of the animals. Period. You can compare the two and have a valid argument.
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Dan the analogy of the holocaust fails because animals are not people. The philosophy of PETA is wrong from the standpoint of our species, while some of their beliefs can be beneficial to humans their core belief of applying human ethics to non-humans is ridiculous at best. There needs to be a line drawn between our species and all other species; you appear to be a fan of logic so if we apply the reductio ad absurdum argument we cannot find a line as to what needs ethical consideration and what does not. I feel PETA loses a lot of its moral strength when viewed in light of human suffering, and as it should.
Should the animal go hungry or should the man? According to PETA feeding one is as good as feeding the other, and those who are more fanatical would say to feed the animal is better because then man cannot harm the animal when he is dead.
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Michael, your hypothetical situation is rather useless. We do not stand at a crossroads between killing human animals and killing non-human animals, so I fail to see the relevance.
Furthermore, your conclusion — that “just about any sane individual would protect the life of the man, as human life is considered more valuable” — is rather humorously self-unaware. You define sanity in terms of what you think most people would do — which not only makes the term “sanity” a trivial one, but comprises a fundamental twisting of the term.
Indeed, if anyone has issues with sanity, it is you and those who think like you do — swimming in cognitive dissonance. You value human animal life and suffering, but you deem non-human animal life and suffering to be so insignificant that it can be subject to the whim of any human. Why? Just because, I suppose? Never mind that we share similar nervous systems, minus the PreFrontal Cortex brain structure, which allows humans to do all sorts of evil things that nonhuman animals wouldn’t dream of. So I’m not quite sure how you square the extreme value you hold for human suffering with the extreme lack of regard you have for the welfare of non-human animals.
Regarding the holocaust analogy, you seem to believe non-human animals are so insignificant that the loss of 6 million human lives in death camps is in no way analogous to the hundreds of billions of non-human animals killed in the death camps we call factory farms. But you haven’t made any sense of why the analogy to the holocaust fails. You just declare it: “Holocaust analogy failed.” Then you re-declare it: “Period.” You’re going to have get beyond simple declaration to have any kind of “valid argument” on your side, despite the exceptions you seem to want to make for yourself.
Dan’s last blog post.."Less than human"
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Many thanks for your comments, everyone.
Dan: I’m interested in your statement “Any tactic is better than sitting on the sidelines and allowing the status quo to flourish.”
*Any* tactic at all? So the end justifies any means?
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Another Dan,
Nearly every sentence you’ve written includes unestablished premises and rote bias. Please read my post above in response to Michael, which puts the ball back in your court regarding most of what you’ve said.
Something I want to emphasize is that, like Michael, you pose the issues in terms of us (human animals) versus them (non-human animals). This is not even close to representing reality.
Btw, you haven’t “applied the reductio ad absurdum argument” to my contention. It is not absurd to treat all interested beings — by which I mean beings that can feel pain and pleasure — with compassion and respect. What is truly, amazingly absurd is the belief that humans are fundamentally superior to all other creatures.
Dan’s last blog post.."Less than human"
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Everyone, I don’t censor unless it’s a flame or obvious trolling, but I must say I hope those participating will choose not to take this thread – which so far is a reasonable and engaging one – into the side stories of insults or distractions (e.g. is a hypothetical valid).
Dan, not everyone will share your utilitarian perspective.
Hypotheticals are useful – it is perfectly acceptable to use them to help frame a discussion or tease out complex arguments. Let’s attempt to keep it to the core debate, which is important, not the philosophical methods we use to have it or the perceived intellectual deficits of others in the thread.
No ad hominems.
Happy debating about PETA!
December 22nd, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Mike S., thanks for getting involved in this discussion.
I would not say without qualification that in all situations the end justifies whatever means. But my point in saying so here is that the situation for those animals is so dire, so unimaginably terrible and evil, and so incredibly extensive — 10 billion factory farmed animals consumed in the U.S. alone each year — that there are only a few tactics for trying to change the status quo that could possibly be worse than the status quo itself, and really those tactics are quite abstract and unrealistic.
For example, blowing up the world is hypothetically a way to stop factory farming, and obviously that means wouldn’t be justified by the ends. But, short of extreme abstractions like that, there is little that would be more morally objectionable than what is going on right now.
Dan’s last blog post.."Less than human"
December 22nd, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Dan – if one believes that “non-human animals are so insignificant that the loss of 6 million human lives in death camps is in no way analogous to the hundreds of billions of non-human animals killed in the death camps we call factory farms” then the holocaust analogy fails precisely due to that point. After all, the holocaust itself is horrible because it was humans doing bad things to other humans.
Hence, I must illustrate that non-human animals are insignificant compared to a human. To do this, I’ll quote your Ingrid Newkirk: “Generally speaking, mustn’t rhinos think that rhino suffering is more important than vervet monkey suffering and vervet monkeys think that their suffering is more important than songbird suffering?”
I am not a rhino, nor a vervet monkey, nor a songbird. I am a human. Ergo, human suffering is more important. Call me “speciesist” if you will, but do note that every surviving species is necessarily speciesist.
Foreigner’s last blog post..Real Men of Genius – Mr. Internet Crusader for Human Rights
December 22nd, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Hi Sara. I assure you and the others that my comments are meant in a civil tone, even if their delivery is very direct.
I agree that it is perfectly acceptable to use illustrative hypotheticals. However, the hypotheticals posed so far are posit an “us or them” exclusivity that is clearly false. I believe you used the phrase “false dichotomy” above — these hypotheticals commit the same offense.
Dan’s last blog post.."Less than human"
December 22nd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Dan, hi. I’m interested in talking about this more, if you like. Why do you believe humans are not superior to other animals, as most humans believe?
December 22nd, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Hi again, Dan.
So excluding the most extreme abstractions such as the armageddon example you cited, do you believe that PETA are justified in getting their message across performing actions that are deemed not only unlawful but morally unacceptable by global cultural standards – such as acts of terrorism that result in the harm of human beings?
December 22nd, 2008 at 2:41 pm
I live in Virginia Beach and we like to call PETA People Embarrassing the Tidewater Area.
I work on Virginia Beach Blvd – one of the main streets in this part of the world. A while back PETA decided to harrass the neighborhood McDonald’s by renting a billboard across the street and displaying a graphic photo of a cow being slaughtered.
After that lovely display they moved over to the local furrier and held demonstrations. Young women would show up in nothing but trench coats and flash the motorists passing by. Some might not complain, but if it was your car the distracted driver ran into you might feel differently. The furrier has had to turn his business into a fortress since PETA moved into the area and not because of burglars, but because of vandals.
PETA lost any credibility it might have had with me when it was proved that their people killed the animals put in their care and dumped them in the trash.
December 22nd, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Hi Sara, thanks for asking, but I would really turn the tables and ask: Why do humans believe they are fundamentally superior, and that their supposed superiority entitles them to harm these other creatures? It is something we are taught to believe, directly and indirectly. It is something we are inclined to believe, as selfish actors. But do we actually have defensible, non-subjective reasons for believing so?
After all, the burden of justification is not upon me to explain why humans do NOT have a right to subject other creatures to human whims. Rather, it is incumbent upon the ones who wish to claim certain entitlements for themselves to justify their position with good reasons, and to maintain consistency between those reasons and the reasons they deny basic considerations to non-human animals.
I contend that humanity employs a predominant but false reflexive mythology. Some of the “crown jewels” of that mythology are: free will, culpability, extraphysical existence, some unexplained metaphysical/moral superiority, and other special properties and subsequently claimed rights that unjustly rationalize inexcusable harm to our world and all the creatures upon it. There are two main tacks to my criticism of humanity’s false mythology: (1) that its ontological assertions are false, and (2) that the morals it derives from those false ontological assertions are likewise false. Naturally, one could write hundreds of thousands — millions — of words about these topics. That is a testament to the depth to which humanity has deluded itself regarding its own self-ascribed fundamental superiority.
Instead of reinventing the wheel, I would invite you to read my blog — http://www.HERE.am — which has well over a hundred posts that would flesh out the basic challenges I would make to the idea of fundamental human superiority. And, specifically, I would invite you to read my self-published book conclusively proving the impossibility of two of those humanist “crown jewels” I mentioned earlier: free will and culpability. This is available free for download at the website:
http://here.am/post/44165899/a.....ulpability
I’ve devoted pretty much all the time I can today to this discussion, but please do email me at daniel [dot] mims [at] gmail [dot] com to continue!
Dan’s last blog post.."Less than human"
December 22nd, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Mike S, as I said in my post to Sara above, I am unable to spend much more time here today. But I think you already know the answer to your question.
I also want point out that we shouldn’t conflate legality with morality. The two are entirely distinct.
Dan’s last blog post.."Less than human"
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:23 pm
True, the burden is not on you to prove a negative. I’m curious, however, as to how you rebut the claim that we have a right to use other animals as we see fit because nature intended it.
I’m that “Foreigner” that posted above, btw.
Quan’s last blog post..Real Men of Genius – Mr. Internet Crusader for Human Rights
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Hi once more, Dan. Replying a couple of your comments:
>>”But I think you already know the answer to your question.”
Actually, I was rather hoping I didn’t. But you’ve outlined your case quite clearly now, thank you.
>>”I also want point out that we shouldn’t conflate legality with morality. The two are entirely distinct.
I agree in principle (which is why I kept them separate), although not always in practice…
Thanks for your time. I’ve enjoyed exploring your point of view, even though I don’t share it.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Foreigner, I do not actually believe that you think the holocaust was terrible just because it was humans oppressing humans. What an arbitrary evaluative standard that would be. I for one believe the holocaust was so terrible because interested beings were subjected to immense pain and suffering.
The important links between that holocaust and our modern one are these: (1) the “other”-ness of the victims within the ideology of the oppressors; (2) the use of that “other”-ness to irrationally justify torture and murder; and (3) the scale of suffering and death.
You say you “must illustrate that non-human animals are insignificant compared to a human.” Though I am quite confident that the strongest case you could make would be extremely weak indeed, you haven’t made a case at all. Instead you’ve highlighted an irrelevant quote. And, even if the quote were relevant, you would commit an Appeal to Authority fallacy — based upon the false premise that I have to accept whatever Ingrid Newkirk says as incontrovertible fact. Moreover, to remain consistent yourself, you would have to declare your agreement with everything Newkirk says, simply because she’s Newkirk.
Most importantly, you’re wrong that our tendency to care more for human suffering means that that tendency is justified. And, once again, you can care about both human and non-human welfare at the same time. Do you deny that? We are indeed living during a time of holocaust, and it is within our ability to stop it.
Dan’s last blog post.."Less than human"
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Wow , what an interesting discussion! I understand PETA’s passion and desire to communicate this very important message (many people don’t know where their food comes from anymore or realize how the animals are treated) but I’m afraid their PR Stunts corrupt the message. I’ve always believed the best way to lead is by example. They would do better to continue their educational efforts without the “shock-value” for PR. I’m afraid it just turns most people off. If you want to see a great documentary on the whole Specists issue – check out Earthlings : http://www.earthlings.com/
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Thanks, Shonna.
I rather agree with you. At the end of the day, it’s about getting the job done – and if a more extreme approach proves less effective than a more moderate one, then the moderate approach has to be the way forward – because the whole point of the exercise is getting the message to the maximum number of people.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:53 pm
The Newkirk quote I felt coincided with my own views quite nicely. I am a human, therefore I look out for human goals first. It’s the way nature intended for us to operate. A species that does not put itself ahead of other species does not survive.
Oh, and the difference between the Jewish and the chicken holocausts is that the “other”-ness of the Jews is a purely cultural one, whereas the “other”-ness of the chicken is concrete.
Quan’s last blog post..Real Men of Genius – Mr. Internet Crusader for Human Rights
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Quan, thanks for responding. I would once again say it is incumbent upon you to explain and justify what you mean by “nature intended it.”
But, assuming you mean to ask how I would respond to the claim that humans are naturally suited to eating other animals, as other animals are and which I do not critique, I hope the following response is adequate.
In nature, ecosystems maintain balance because every species is kept in check by limited access to food. A simplified illustration: Lions eat gazelles. Lions reproduce. Lions eat more gazelles. The gazelle population diminishes below the amount the lions need to sustain their population. Therefore, the lion population diminishes. As the lion population diminishes, the gazelle population surges. And so the cycle goes.
If nature is a system of co-equal “give-and-take,” humans removed themselves from nature when they decided everything was theirs to take, and nothing was theirs to give. You cannot use a naturalistic argument to defend human dominion, because human dominion is anti-natural. To wit, if you want to defend a hunter-gather human’s right to eat meat to the degree that the surrounding ecosystem can support, by all means I’m with you. However, if you want to defend a modern human population’s right to cage, mutilate, torture, and slaughter billions of animals each year, I’m not with you. Not by a longshot!
Dan’s last blog post..Instructive
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:00 pm
That is indeed what I meant.
By doing the whole caging->mass slaughtering process, you can support a lot higher food animal population, which in turn supports a higher human population. If you’re talking about killing, it’s no different from a hunter-gatherer spearing a deer, except it takes place on a bigger scale.
Quan’s last blog post..Real Men of Genius – Mr. Internet Crusader for Human Rights
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Hi again, Dan and Quan. Thanks for contuing to share your thoughts..
Dan – I don’t wish to sound like I’m putting words into your mouth, but can I clarify your comment when you say “humans removed themselves from nature”?
Earlier you were essentially arguing that animals deserve the same ethical treatment as humans and that killing animals is tantamount to murder. However, here you’re of the opinion that humans have separated themselves from nature – with the implication than human culture has ‘lost its way’, ie. is currently exterior and thus inferior to the natural world?
In which case, you could argue that all of PETA’s work should take priority over any other cultural concerns?
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Quan, regarding your point about “other”-ness, you are drawing rather arbitrary lines when you say the one is “cultural” and the other is “concrete.” What you should instead be thinking about is, are the lines being used to justify either of these holocausts adequate to justify what the oppressor party did and/or does to the oppressed party?
Also, you are wrong about there being a “concrete” difference between humans and chickens, if by “concrete” you mean that humans and chickens share nothing. Chickens have nervous systems and feel pain much like we do, for example. They strive to live, just like we do. These are reasons why we respect the lives and welfare of other humans — how can we non-arbitrarily deny chickens that same consideration?
Btw, you had better believe that the Nazis felt that the difference between them and the Jews was not merely a cultural one. That is why they could do what they did to them. Your defense of the fundamental superiority of humanity thus far, and its connection to your willingness to defend the torture and slaughter of non-human creatures, are not coincidental.
Dan’s last blog post..Instructive
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Quan, the difference between that natural world I defend and the factory farming world you defend is that the latter involves suffering that is many magnitudes of order greater than would occur in what we are calling a natural world. This is difference is paramount. You seem to think that sheer numbers of living creatures is a qualitative way to evaluate our competing visions, but obviously it is merely a quantitative one. I, for one, would rather never have existed at all, if the alternative was to live my life on a factory farm. I suspect that most humans knowledgeable about factory farms would make the same choice.
Mike S, I confess I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at. I wouldn’t say human culture has “lost its way.” I would say that we now abide by a fundamentally different culture than we did prior to the forming of our mass superiority complex, one which has led us to destroy the planet and torture/kill its inhabitants as though it is our moral providence to do so. Had we never adopted a radically destructive culture, the world and its inhabitants would indeed be much better off.
As for cultural concerns, they carry no moral weight for me because I realize that they are arbitrary. Cultures are constructed and inherently circular. If we were to assign weight to cultural mores without appeal to external standards of justification, we would have to agree, for example, that female circumcision is just fine, because certain Arabic and African cultures deem it so. Of course, then we are left with contradictory moral imperatives, because other cultures do not deem female circumcision to be morally.acceptable The cultural relativist is thus forced to admit that female circumcision is simultaneously right and wrong, which is logically impossible. (By the way, what I have just performed is a true reductio ad absurdum, wherein an opposing argument is shown to lead to an absurd conclusion.) Cultural relativism is indefensible because of the arbitrary nature of culture.
Dan’s last blog post..Instructive
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Dan – so what if chickens have a nervous system, feel pain, and strive to live? So does every other living thing on this earth. Also, I hope you’re not seriously insinuating that the difference between a Jew and another human is the exact same as that between a chicken and a human.
As for Nazis, it doesn’t matter what they believed. The difference between them and me is that they were flat-out wrong in their claims that Jews were somehow different from other humans in any way other than culture and some minute details in phenotype, whereas can you really argue that humans and chickens are somehow not two different species? My defense of humanity’s superiority to animals may not be coincidental with my willingness to defend factory farming, but it has very little to do with any unconscious Naziness on my part.
And honestly, if it’s between not existing or allowing millions of animals to suffer, I’ll take existence, thank you very much.
Quan’s last blog post..Real Men of Genius – Mr. Internet Crusader for Human Rights
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Would just like to add that cultural/moral relativists simply claim that what is right is subjective based on things like context, utility, etc. Infanticide may be immoral in a society where it’s not necessary, but quite moral in a family suffering through a famine.
Quan’s last blog post..Real Men of Genius – Mr. Internet Crusader for Human Rights
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Thanks for your continued thoughts….
“Had we never adopted a radically destructive culture, the world and its inhabitants would indeed be much better off.”
I agree that cultural norms are all relativist and there is no “objective” cultural reality. (Same goes for science, which is something scientists sometimes fail to convey properly to the mass-media).
But wouldn’t you consider the possibility that the idea of human culture existing in an earlier, more “naturally balanced” state is itself a form of modern cultural relativism, rather than a objective statatement? It’s a world view that is a modern invention?
Take the moors of Britain, where I live. Archaeological palynology strongly points to an anthropogenic smoking gun – ie. forests were cleared by early humans, allowing the development of moorland. This could be seen as the “destruction” of the environment – or it could be seen as the “creation” of moorland, which has its own distinct ecosystem.
So the evidence could support a “humans in tune with nature” argument and also a “humans vs. nature” argument. It’s relativist. it depends on who you are, now.
The “radically destructive” modern culture you speak of, globally, is a relativist view. It could also be seen (and this is my personal view) that we are essentially the same creatures as we always were but we have developed an astonishing array of tools to change the course of not just our own future history, but increasingly that of the planet we live on. That’s our responsibility, to address by working hard to find the most ethical, most sustainable and the most sensible ways forward *that work as a species*. We do this for ‘instinctual’ reasons (seeking food, warmth, companionship – like any other natural creatures) but we also have a special perspective (as far as we can tell it’s unique, anyway). And a special responsibility. In this, in at the very least a practical sense, human beings have special status.
That’s my personal, relativist cultural paradigm.
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Quan, you’ve missed the point on just about everything, and you’ve repeatedly put words into my mouth.
First, not “every other living thing on Earth” feels pain. Plants, for example. And as I said before, quite clearly, that is not a reductio ad absurdum against my argument. As I said: “It is not absurd to treat all interested beings “” by which I mean beings that can feel pain and pleasure “” with compassion and respect. What is truly, amazingly absurd is the belief that humans are fundamentally superior to all other creatures.” For you still haven’t justified that claim!
Second, I haven’t “insinuated” anything. I say what I mean and mean what I say, which is why I’m such a good conversation partner, so I hear.
Third, when did I say that chickens and humans are not members of different species? In fact, I directly acknowledged it, though I stated that species alone is not a valid distinction for denying chickens the most basic consideration.
Fourth, you can say you aren’t embodying any “Naziness,” but the parallels I have drawn remain unchallenged and, more importantly, accurate. You continue to insist on species as a non-arbitrary mode of differentiation, which I have already dispelled and you have not challenged except by re-declaration of the dispelled point. I recommend the first chapter of Peter Singer’s book “Animal Liberation” if you want to see an open-and-shut case for why racism and species-ism share the same irrational foundation.
Finally, you said: “And honestly, if it’s between not existing or allowing millions of animals to suffer, I’ll take existence, thank you very much.” First of all, how pathetic of you. Second, where are you getting that from? That wasn’t the merely illustrative hypothetical I posed for myself, and it is not a choice you face in reality, so I wonder what point you think it proves.
Dan’s last blog post..Instructive
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Here’s an example of how effective PeTA’s antics are. A local radio station holds an annual fishing tournament in front of PeTA’s riverfront headquarters. It’s one of their biggest, best attended events of the year. The radio station gets more press than PeTA does when they they dress up in nothing but bodypaint to protest a circus parade.
As for the legitimacy of their beliefs, i am of the opinion that PeTA only believes in publicity for itself. Their continued existence, and any donations they can collect, are PeTA’s goals. Any benefit for animals is secondary.
December 22nd, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Quan, you have described utilitarianism, not relativism. (Utilitarianism, by the way, demands consideration of the vital utility of a creature’s life to itself as compared with the very fleeting uitility we find in taking that animal’s life.)
Mike S, I merely brought in talk of relativism to show how misguided it is to value cultural norms, because you are forced to value them for their own sake *and nothing else.* The rules of nature, by which I mean the rules that show the way towards balance and sustainability, are constant and unchanging. To obey them is to reap a sustainable ecosystem. To deny them is to reap destruction for all. These rules are in place right now, despite the way we live; this is why our world is dying.
Again, cultural norms = arbitrary, fleeting. Natural norms = highly evidenced, unyielding.
I think you make the same fallacy of selective omission in your treatment of science. You said, “I agree that cultural norms are all relativist and there is no ‘objective’ cultural reality. (Same goes for science, which is something scientists sometimes fail to convey properly to the mass-media).” I find this to be highly misleading. I am no fan of science — it has enabled the destruction of our planet and is often complicit with the most evil forces humanity can muster — but science is a matter of empirical inquiry. It strives to avoid bias and involves peer review according to standards of logic and evidence. Science, unlike culture, is built to be able to change by non-arbitrary modes. That is why, for example, evolution is a non-arbitrarily *better* theory than creationism in explaining the Earth’s biological history and present state of affairs.
Also, regarding your story about the moorlands, which I am in no position to refute, I didn’t mean to suggest that pre-civilization humans were saints, so to speak, or that they never altered their environment in deep ways. They had massive flaws just like any animal, and in isolated cases could be fairly destructive. So can beavers. But, unlike pre-civilization humans and beavers and lions and gazelles, modern humans number in the 6.5 billion+ and are taking the entire ship down with them while causing unprecedented amounts of suffering. These are not subjective observations.
These developments directly result from the doctrine of human dominion. For a more detailed version of this idea, I suggest you read “Ishmael,” by Daniel Quinn. The first half of “Story of B” (same author) is also quite illuminating.
Now I am off to a delicious vegan dinner. Ta ta.
Dan’s last blog post..Instructive
December 22nd, 2008 at 6:40 pm
PeTA = hypocricy.
http://www.petakillsanimals.co.....secret.cfm
December 22nd, 2008 at 6:41 pm
I’m not up to speed on all of the philosophical weapons employed by the new breed of intellectual so I won’t delve in to realm of who is wrong based on what technicality. I would like to say only this:
Dan, you sound remarkably like Ellsworth M Toohey from The Fountainhead. I doubt highly that you have read it as Objectivist philosophy (which I do not subscribe to) seems to be contrary to your own personal philosophy. The point I am trying to make is that we are not all one and the same. I am more important than the chickens you all seem to be discussing because of the word “I”. We are a group of individuals, not an amorphous blob of bio matter. You can refute my statements with whatever tools you feel necessary but you won’t change my mind.
December 22nd, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Fascinating viewpoint, Dan. Thank you.
To bring the discussion round to the original discussion point:
Do you believe that what PETA stands for is the championing of these “natural norms” – and so their methods, whatever methods are employed, no matter how illegal or how opposed to existing cultural norms – even those methods illustrated in Jeff’s examples above – are justified because of the end result? Or do you believe otherwise?
December 22nd, 2008 at 9:09 pm
OK, I just lost an entire long ass post. Fuck the “last blog post” link and how ctrl-clicking it not only doesn’t open in a new tab, but also makes it so you can’t go back to the previous page.
Anyways, the gist of what I was saying:
It doesn’t matter if we share a nervous system, ability to feel pain, blah blah blah. We’re of different species than the chicken (used here as a stand-in all our food animals), we’re stronger than they are by virtue of our ability to use tools, and Mother Nature says that’s all the justification we need to use them as we see fit. Of course, this does not apply to members of our own species, because there’s a very good reason you act more civilly to your own species – any other way leads to extinction. I also don’t see us as superior to the other species. In fact, I believe all species are indeed equal, the logical conclusion being that just as other species kill and eat each other for food, humans are justified in killing and eating other species for food. We just happen to be much better at it.
As for Nazis, the difference between me and the Reich is simply that they were flat-out wrong when claiming that the Jews were a distinct and inferior race, whereas empirically chickens are distinct from us as a matter of species and obviously less capable than we are. You have also not dispelled the notion of using species as a means of distinction. As for Peter Singer’s stuff, it fails for the same reason that the Holocaust parallels fail – because we are humans and therefore human needs come first. Perhaps it comes from the same foundation as racism or whatnot, but that doesn’t make it bad. In fact, species that don’t engage in so-called “speciesism” tend to become extinct real quickly.
Anyways, the final hypothetical was me misreading one of your sentences. My bad.
Since Mike wants us to get back to the regular discussion, my answer is no, PETA’s stuff is not justified. All it is is unnecessary ruckus-raising activism (and you can check my “real men of genius” post on my opinion of those, heh) that doesn’t do anything. Actually, IMO it’s worse than apathy, because what it does is exactly what the original article says – it takes what might be an actual worthwhile cause and trivializes it. PETA’s actions, instead of promoting intelligent discussion about legit issues that may result in solving those issues, instead turn those issues into something no one will touch because they don’t want to be connected with those “loonies who throw red paint on people.”
Quan’s last blog post..Real Men of Genius – Mr. Internet Crusader for Human Rights
December 22nd, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Dan, your points are generally spot on being fair, if a little biased in favour of one side, but being critical -
Using a lot of long words makes you come accross as pretentious and condescending, not intelligent.
Thanks.
December 22nd, 2008 at 9:44 pm
No one here has made an effective argument that explains why human life is more valuable than animal. Yes humans and chickens are very different but that does not mean they have any less right to live. Yes, most humans are self aware, and appear to be the only species that exhibits this trait but how does this entitle us to greater rights than other living beings?
It’s a little late for me to be constructing rational, coherent arguments so I’ll just indulge in throwing my beliefs at you.
Ultimately I believe that in the eyes of “God” a chicken has just as much right to live as I do but I’ll eat the chicken because I can and I want to, and the chicken would probably eat me if it could and it wanted to.
I see no need to subject animals to needless suffering and I am philosophically against “animal factories” however, I have been known to eat at McDs on occasion when I’m hungry enough and lack a convenient better option. I recognize the conflict here and I wont try and justify it.
As far as PETA is concerned, it’s my opinion that despite some ill-conceived campaigns and some bad eggs, as a whole they are well intentioned and good people. I am not sure how effective they are. They could definitely be more mindful of mainstream values and I think they wouldn’t be as marginalized. I do believe that they could be more effective but if I had to make a call I’d say that the cause is better off because of them.
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Hey Quan, sorry about the last post issue. It’s a pretty solid WP plugin but I’ll have our developer check on why it’s not working perfectly.
Quite a conversation, all!
Sara’s last blog post..Stylish, by My Calculation
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Hi Rick. It’s a good thing that the appearance of pretension has nothing to do with whether or not my points are valid. Otherwise, I might be concerned!
Dan’s last blog post..Instructive
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Kris, your admission of an inability to change because you believe you have a self, while you believe non-human creatures do not have a self, makes you sound an awful lot like a devotee of Ayn Rand, who’s crap I have read and who I indeed, as you surmise, rail against.
What you ought to be concerned about is the reality that chickens are no less “a blob of amorphous biomatter” than humans, when defined as such. I take it to be an obvious fact that each chicken is literally distinct from every other chicken, as each human is literally distinct from every other.
I guess I just don’t understand why you find that a compelling reason for anything whatsoever.
Dan’s last blog post..Instructive
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Sorry to jump in on everyone here, but I would be willing to bet no one on here has ever killed an animal, farming, hunting, or otherwise (a cow stepped in front of my tractor once… long story)
I ate a ribeye tonight. It was delicious. I raised the cow myself.(Angus is overrated by the way) 40 head of cattle in beautiful Iowa. No factory farming here, just my wife, kids and a little over a thousand acres.
I slit the cows throat myself after I knocked him out. I didn’t feel bad nor happy, it is what I do. But try and tell me I don’t have a right to do that and I’ll laugh at your intellectual bull(no pun), because you don’t know me, my farm, or the cow. My guess is that you people would try and say what right do I have to take its life? I’ll throw this out, and you can run it through you’re intellectual bullshit machine and spit some PETA line back out. I go into the ocean and a shark kills me. The shark was eating what was in its territory. I do the same. I’m just smart enough to put a fence around my territory so my food can’t escape.
I challenege you to come out and meet some real farmers, some real ranchers. We hate those corporate fucks just as much as you PETA folks do I bet. The meat they churn out tastes horrible, is full of artificial stuff I don’t want to think about, and all they want is for me to be out of business. The meat I raise is beautiful. I love my cows. I would defend my cows with my guns if anyone tried to hurt them.
In the end, if you really think that what I do is wrong, you’re high from the smell of your own farts. Yeah, we get cable even here in Iowa.
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:37 pm
The point I was trying to make is that the chicken is going to look out for itself, and I will look out for myself.
And I am not looking for a compelling reason for anything. In fact I believe it is you who would need a very compelling reason for me to stop being an omnivore.
I would like to clarify one thing here: I don’t condone the torture of animals. I think factory farming is heinous. However there are plenty of ways to humanely grow, kill and eat a chicken.
PeTA on the other hand seems to think that my cats would be better off in the streets, “Liberated” from the oppression of regular meals, a warm place and a loving companion.
PeTA’s association with outlaws, and tendencies towards offensive and attention seeking behaviors take away from the legitimate organizations who are actually trying to make a difference.
In my experience PeTA has never converted a meat eater, merely agitated the vegetarians and vegans into acts of terrorism.
Its like setting up a church just to attract people who already believe.
December 23rd, 2008 at 6:42 am
Dan, I admire your intellectual clarity and honesty. You have made your case very well, time and again. I am frustrated for you out of empathy. I have found myself in the same futile debates with people who haven’t learned the rules of logic. I realize what I am about to write is patronizing, but none-the-less I have discovered it to be true: You can’t reason someone out of something they weren’t reasoned in to in the first place. Moreover, the vast majority of people you are trying to reason with are incapable of reason. That is not to say they can not be taught to understand how to formulate a rational thought. You have done a remarkable job remaining patient and outlining your points in a very cohesive way. I would have given up out of frustration by now. Kudos.
Note to anyone who replies to my post out of anger because you infer I am writing about you specifically – I am.
December 23rd, 2008 at 9:24 am
I’m a co-blogger of Dan’s at http://www.HERE.am, and I’d like to add a few thoughts to the discussion.
It’s worth noting that humanism/species-ism — human delusions of essential/fundamental superiority to others and to the ecosystemic whole — is both a root cause of destructive behaviors and also a product of them.
Human animals began their experiment in civilization because environmental factors enabled and forced it. Temperatures warmed in what came to be known as the fertile crescent, food sources multiplied, human animal populations grew and unwittingly played genetic selection with food plants — the largest wild grain and seed specimens were consumed and planted through defecation — and learned to farm. Human animals gained greater control over greater amounts of land and food supplies, and predictably the population grew further. A surplus of human animals emerged, more than were needed for essential survival tasks, and social hierarchies formed. More land to control, more resources to control, more animals — both human and non-human — to control. And the rest is really quite predictable, culturally and environmentally.
Human animals believe they are fundamentally superior because their culture and surroundings tell them this in various ways from birth. That utterly strange and arbitrary belief — which is entirely imagined — takes on an appearance of concreteness in the forms of the objects and actions it produces and comes from, but it has no objective basis. As this thread demonstrates, it is assumed rather than demonstrated by any rigorous means.
That appearance of solidity is why many feel justified in “arguing” with the claim that humans are simply different in a way that renders the qualities of other creatures irrelevant; “˜we just are’, they say, as their minds forget for the moment that they are animals too, animals who have sex and take shits and are bound by limited perspectives and evolutionary characteristics. If prodded to support such a claim of essentialized superiority and separation, many human animals will rationalize their exploitative existences with fallacious and selectively applied “might makes right” arguments (see several comments above).
And here’s a point that hasn’t received enough attention on this thread, one that might resonate more with humanists but doesn’t detract from any other points: All life is threatened by this massive departure from reality. It’s not just about the horrific treatment of billions and billions of other animals. It’s also about the rationalization of huge ecosystemic changes undertaken in the name of human special-ness and entitlement: the co-option and unsustainable use of planetary resources at a wildly disproportionate clip, the widespread introduction of chemical compounds heretofore unseen and completely unadapted to, the disruption of atmospheric and oceanic temperature systems, and the undermining of genetic diversity within and across species, to name a few.
“Man” really has no clue about the extent of the damage being done to ourselves and others. We may not survive our whims in the long-run, and we certainly have and will destroy many others in the process.
As to the original discussion point, I can’t say whether PETA’s tactics are entirely effective or not. I can say they have changed some minds and they have turned others off. But really, to semi-reiterate a point Dan made, when you look at the scope and seriousness of the problem PETA is attempting to address, it’s easy to see that most attempts to disparage them are really just attempts to continue one’s participation in the status quo. Why else would one turn their guns on PETA — a non-violent, non-terrorist organization, for those of you who are confused — vs. assailing the actual terror-mongers? While it’s an entirely understandable reaction for human animals, as animals, to experience when someone confronts their normal routines, I’m nonetheless dumbfounded at one thread participant’s attempt to sympathize with that poor McDonald’s franchise that had the truth splattered across the street from it.
PETA’s publicity efforts are clearly working in the sense that they get people talking about the mere possibility of doing things differently. They are hoping to engage people’s feeling and thinking capacities at once. Ironically, this is what many humanist-specisists deny in themselves when they try to argue for their relevance in asserting entitled status as a member of “humanity”.
Matt M.’s last blog post..Instructive
December 23rd, 2008 at 9:31 am
Quan, are you really arguing that “˜might makes right’ and that the only reason it is wrong for more powerful humans to abuse less powerful humans is because it could hypothetically lead to the extinction of our species?
Don’t you agree that it is wrong to needlessly hurt or kill other people even if it won’t lead to extinction of the species? And for that same reason, can’t you also agree that it is wrong to needlessly hurt or kill non-humans?
You make the often used claim that other animals eat animals so it should be okay for people to eat animals too. Surely you have heard of the many different species of animals who don’t eat other animals (herbivores). Why not follow their example instead of the example of predators?
And, surely you have heard of people who don’t eat other animals (vegans). Why not follow their example?
According to the American Dietetic Association, vegan diets are healthy and appropriate for all stages of the human life cycle, including pregnancy, infancy and adolescence. [Source: http://www.eatright.org/cps/rd.....U_HTML.htm
Since people can be healthy without eating animals, that means that people don’t need to eat other animals. So, (in most cases) the suffering other animals experience when they are raised (mostly on factory farms) and/or killed for food is needless suffering. If you agree that it is wrong to cause needless suffering then you should also agree that it is wrong for people to eat other animals.
December 23rd, 2008 at 10:28 am
Hi Matt, if you feel like it, shoot me an email at daniel [dot] mims [at] gmail [dot] com and let’s talk.
Dan’s last blog post..Instructive
December 23rd, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Matt and Matt M.-
Thanks for stopping by.
Although it’s implicit, I’d like to note that we welcome all points of view to this discussion – and being a discussion, it’s a sharing of views rather than an opportunity to change anyone’s mind (I think that’s unlikely on this issue!)…
Matt -
“Human animals began their experiment in civilization because environmental factors enabled and forced it.”.
I understand this argument, but it’s rather a sweeping statement on a subject that still provokes fierce discussion amongst archaeologists and palaeohistorians. I’m not saying this functionalist and largely environmentally deterministic argument is incorrect either – I’m saying that the best in the business still can’t be sure. There are many other cultural, even non-rational (ie. incidences of human beings doing things for reasons wholly inexplicable to us) factors to potentially add to the mix. As with other animals, we don’t completely understand why we do what we do.
Matt M -
“PETA’s publicity efforts are clearly working in the sense that they get people talking about the mere possibility of doing things differently.”
There are many, arguably the majority, who believe that PETA are forcing people into corners rather than bringing them into the middle for a frank, lucid discussion on the subject. ie. They polarize and reinforce prejudices on both sides.
If you believe that the end justifies the means and that it doesn’t matter how the message gets across just as long as it gets across most effectively to the maximum number of people and that they truly *accept* it…would you consider the possibility that by alienating large numbers of people who would be receptive to the ideas posited were they more moderately-toned, PETA directly hurts the cause you believe in?
December 23rd, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Mike S, I wonder what you think the point of exchanging ideas is, if it is not at least in part to make progress towards truth via a fair competition of ideas. Are we simply declaring our views so that we can all laugh and smile and thank each other for sharing? Certainly there are those here who do not want to change because they do not want to change because they do not want to change. They have declared as much. Frankly, I don’t understand why they’re here.
In any case, if nothing else, this discussion has shown that at least some mainstream positions and behaviors are lacking defensibility. Moreover, it has shown that very non-mainstream views are robustly defensible. To show someone they don’t know what they think they know is often enough to lead them toward change, even if that change does occur today.
Dan’s last blog post..Instructive
December 23rd, 2008 at 1:38 pm
I think it’s always important to try to understand a viewpoint you are opposed to. If things go as they should and everyone keeps a level head, then they take food for thought away with them. That may lead to a shift in viewpoint, that may not.
However, as you say, viewpoints on both sides (possbly incorrectly surmising that there are just two sides here) are being robustly defended. It’s an argument that has polarized people.
>>”In any case, if nothing else, this discussion has shown that at least some mainstream positions and behaviors are lacking defensibility. Moreover, it has shown that very non-mainstream views are robustly defensible.”
That’s an example of a defensive argument.
Personally, I’m enjoying myself thoroughly. I’m not opposed to having by views challenged or even overturned, and if that happens, then it will be for a good reason and I welcome it. I would hope that everyone, yourself included, feels the same.
December 23rd, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Just to clarify my point: yes, such discussions can change hearts and minds. But I don’t believe it will happen on this issue right here, speaking pragmatically. I’d welcome being proved wrong.
December 23rd, 2008 at 1:54 pm
I couldn’t agree more — one should try to understand the views of their opponents. Indeed, that is what *relevant* counter-argumentation proves — it is a sign that you have respected another enough to understand what they’ve said, and therefore have responded appropriately.
You said, “That’s an example of a defensive argument.” I don’t see how. Because I used the word “defensible”? Obviously the one doesn’t follow from the other.
I’m having a great time as well. And of course I too am willing to change my view, when my view is shown to be less defensible.
I hope you won’t take that to be a defensive statement just bc I used that word “defensible” again. Thanks
Dan’s last blog post..Instructive
December 23rd, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Re: your addendum, I actually meant to end my post logged at 1:30pm with:
“To show someone they don’t know what they think they know is often enough to lead them toward change, even if that change does not occur today.” Left out the “not.”
Dan’s last blog post..Instructive
December 23rd, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Man, this thing grew long. This is probably going to be my last post here (going to argue with some other people about martial arts), so I’ll give y’all the last word.
Sara – sorry if that last complaint seemed a little uncivil. If it helps, right click and choosing the “open link in new tab” option works, it’s just using the ctrl+click shortcut that doesn’t.
Others – I think I’ve made it pretty clear my views on whether we have the right to use the other life forms. If not, GoCyclones’ shark analogy sums it up. Is this taking a “might makes right view”? Sure. Nature doesn’t seem to run on any other principle. Now, is my taking such a view towards the other species inconsistent with my being against treating our fellow humans in such a manner? Not at all. IMO, the right to use as we see fit only applies to those outside the species. The species as a whole gets to decide what constitutes proper treatement between members of the same species. You see this in nature as well – very few species engage in cannibalism, for example, except as last resort. Again, if the species are truly equal, then what you permit for one species you must permit for others as well.
As for going veg…we are omnivores. If anything, we’d follow the examples of fellow omnis, like chimps or bears (those godless killing machines). Sure, we can survive on an all-veg diet, but it’s a hella more inconvenient than being omni. Plus, being omni makes you better from an evolutionary standpoint, no? As far as suffering/nervous system/etc goes, I honestly don’t care about any of that. There is nothing wrong with killing for food if you’re a carni or an omni.
Quan’s last blog post..Real Men of Genius – Mr. Internet Crusader for Human Rights
December 23rd, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Mike S., thanks for your comments.
To the first point about functionalism and environmental determinism, first let me say that I wasn’t really touching on functionalism, at least in the sociocultural sense that I’m familiar with. I certainly was implying an environmental determinism that challenges the idealized imagination of pure human ingenuity leading to the dawn of civilization.
The remark was sweeping, yes. But more importantly, it makes sense given what is known about human animals and their history, unobscured by species-ist assumptions. (And at least some of those who are opposed to the idea do so to satisfy blind commitments to human special-ness.) You’re right that human animals don’t really understand everything or even much that they do, but that doesn’t challenge the possibility of environmental determinism (which includes genetic factors), as determined behavior doesn’t have to be understood behavior. Anyway my main interest was in talking about human animals alive today, and why they find themselves in a tense place regarding human identity.
To the second point, it would be great to have the data on how different people view PETA’s various actions and what turns them on or off to the group. Polarization is definitely a concern. We can safely say that the people who hate PETA generally hate vegetarianism as a whole, and the implicit challenge it presents to their meaty, cheesy, don’t-tread-on-me-even-though-I-tread-on-many whims. They are probably never going to be vegetarian or vegan anyway, unless forced by circumstances. (Maybe they’d be open to free-range or organic options.) Likewise, the people who love PETA were either already on board or harbored inclinations to come on board once jarred out of status quo behaviors (and this is obviously a victory for their cause). Many in the middle will be turned off by PETA’s demonstrations for sure. Others will be intrigued by them.
It seems to me that PETA’s campaigns are alternately geared towards creating a mainstream space in which people can be socially enabled to change their habits, and not just with their live protests. They want people, especially young people, to have heard the name PETA before in connection with something interesting and/or edgy, so that when they go to a Warped Tour show they’ll stop by and pick up the literature to see the horrors for themselves.
And let’s remember that PETA occupies one niche among many groups working towards greater justice for non-human animals. If PETA turns someone off who might otherwise be receptive, then maybe HSUS or others can pick up the slack. It’d certainly be nice if environmental groups and Al Gore would get serious and start publicizing the connections between the livestock industry and global warming. Then they could be the voices of the “mainstream” vegetarians/vegans while PETA continues its boundary-pushing work to bend the middle to a more just residence.
As far as having a “frank, lucid discussion” goes, I think PETA is doing a decent job of breaking the ice. It’s not going to be pretty all the time, and my sense is that PETA’s bad name in some circles has far more to do with the self-serving distortions of their enemies than with anything they’ve actually done.
Matt M.’s last blog post..Instructive
December 23rd, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Quan, I didn’t take any offense, and I’ve very much enjoyed reading your comments (and everyone’s). I’m ye olde harried editor so I’ll make my point brief. Unfortunately I can’t get into this too much for the sake of time, but I will state my view.
Dan, I find you to be a superbly logical person and I’d have to go to a lot more grad school before I could hope to compete with your rhetorical prowess. You present a fascinating and compelling argument and you’re confident in your assertions. I agree that the treatment of animals in the current system is morally unacceptable – not to mention ecologically unsustainable. However.
It seems to me that it is deeply sociopathic and irrational not to be interested in one’s own species first. Unless we’re prepared to dispense with modern psychology, I don’t view it as irrational or immoral in the slightest that a human would care about humans more than other animals. I would view denying preference for one’s own species as masochistic at worst; cynical at best. Other humans remember my trials and overlook my flaws, support my efforts, hold me when I cry, write poems and books and make music and art when I need intellectual and spiritual refreshment, and when I’m lucky even make love to me. I’m thankful for the organic local chicken I’ll be having for dinner. I appreciate the companionship of my cat. But I am human and therefore connected to other humans in a way that is not to be diminished but rather celebrated and honored. We could do with less cynicism, isolation, and narcissism and we certainly don’t need more self-loathing. All these things have brought us to where we are now. We face grave problems. But the antidote is not homeopathy; that is, the cure is not to demote humanity down a notch. A prescription of “you’re not as great as you think you are” is no way to inspire humanity to improve.
Modern humans are clearly the most dangerous creatures on the planet, and I also believe we ought to fully support humane treatment of animals. But the day I consider an infant and a salamander to be of equal worth, is the day I hope my loved ones have me committed. Such a view would represent my utter detachment from what it means to be human and part of the human community.
But that’s just me.
December 23rd, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Quan, you still seem to be misreading most of the points that you don’t already agree with, simply because you don’t already agree with them. (Being charitable, I assume you are doing this unintentionally.) And because of this, you seem to think it sufficient to merely re-declare the things you’ve already declared and re-declared. Some examples of misreadings:
You said, “I think I’ve made it pretty clear my views on whether we have the right to use the other life forms. If not, GoCyclones’ shark analogy sums it up.” I contend that GoCyclones’ shark analogy doesn’t work at all, for reasons that have already been stated. GoCyclones’ ranch does not obey the norms of nature, whereas, presumably, the shark situation takes place within nature. Thus the analogy fails to mount a genuine challenge to my earlier contention, which was made in response to your declarations. Yet you do not feel a need to challenge the point, despite its undermining the analogy that “sums up” your position.
You said, “Is this taking a ‘might makes right view’? Sure. Nature doesn’t seem to run on any other principle.” Actually, I have put forth a different principle of nature which you have yet to challenge. Moreover, as I have said, modern man is outside of nature. It is a fallacy to apply the pragmatic principles of one realm — e.g. a sufficiently natural one — to a fundamentally different realm — e.g. a dominionist agriculturalist one — as though the pragmatic quality of those principles remains. And as I have said, you have not challenged my contention that the two realms are fundamentally different.
You said, “IMO, the right to use as we see fit only applies to those outside the species. The species as a whole gets to decide what constitutes proper treatment between members of the same species.” You once again try to hinge your argument upon this notion of species as a non-arbitrary dividing line for exclusion from the sphere of moral concern (i.e. species-ism), which you have yet to establish, particularly in t he face of strong challenge. Unqualified declaration doesn’t amount to establishment. (Also, for the record, your claim about members of a given species getting together and “deciding” how they will treat each other is quite strange and just plain incorrect, and it doesn’t speak at all to what we *ought* to do, morally, when it comes to the treatment of other species.)
You said, “If the species are truly equal, then what you permit for one species you must permit for others as well.” Nobody has argued that “[different] species are truly equal.” What I and some others have argued is that the fact that differences between species exist — and it is a fact, obviously — does not alone justify the terrible things that human animals do to non-human ones, and that at least some of the same standards we use to justify consideration for the welfare of other human animals also apply to non-human ones. These claims have, again, gone unchallenged except via under-argued proclamation.
Dan’s last blog post..Instructive
December 23rd, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Sara, thanks for joining back in. There is a lot to say about nearly every one of your thoughts and I wish I had the time. I will have to just make a few points and let the rest go.
You said, “It seems to me that it is deeply sociopathic and irrational not to be interested in one’s own species first.” And you said: “The day I consider an infant and a salamander to be of equal worth, is the day I hope my loved ones have me committed.”
The first statement seems to assume that thinking of one’s own species “first” is mutually exclusive with avoiding harm to other animal species. Of course there is no such exclusivity. Regarding the notion that the failure to be species-ist to at least some extent is seemingly (1) sociopathic and (2) irrational, that’s nonsense. Regarding (1), species-ism is group-level sociopathy. Regarding (2), I believe I represent a pretty good counter-example, if you meant what you said when you called me “superbly logical.” Or, if you meant “rational” in the self-preservational sense,
The second statement reproduced above puts words into my mouth, as I have never even stated that individuals of the *same* species are “equal” let alone that members of *different* species are “equal.”
What both of the above reproduced statements have in common is the assumption that we have an “us or them” situation on our hands. But this doesn’t mesh with the reality. We can treat both human animals and non-human animals well, at the same time. I wish somebody here would actually acknowledge that point, rather than ignore it and continue to make arguments built upon a falsehood.
You also said: “I appreciate the companionship of my cat. But I am human and therefore connected to other humans in a way that is not to be diminished but rather celebrated and honored. We could do with less cynicism, isolation, and narcissism and we certainly don’t need more self-loathing. All these things have brought us to where we are now. We face grave problems. But the antidote is not homeopathy; that is, the cure is not to demote humanity down a notch. A prescription of “you’re not as great as you think you are” is no way to inspire humanity to improve.”
A lot of that is pretty fluffy, and is drawn from an unreliable source: the customary beliefs of the community itself. (This is that circularity we were talking about earlier in the thread when it comes to valuing cultural norms for their own sake.) Further, these beliefs are a direct result of status quo prescribed by those with an interest in preserving human power. That said, I understand why you would want to celebrate the aspects of that community which you mention. I value some pieces of my engagement with the human community. But that fails to give any of us the right to devalue all other animals and animal communities, even though it might make us feel a little better about our own.
You said, “We could do with less cynicism, isolation, and narcissism and we certainly don’t need more self-loathing. All these things have brought us to where we are now. We face grave problems. But the antidote is not homeopathy; that is, the cure is not to demote humanity down a notch. A prescription of ‘you’re not as great as you think you are’ is no way to inspire humanity to improve.”
One can’t “demote humanity down a notch” — or at least, one can only do so within the realm in which humanity is inflated: our reflexive perceptions. The reality of what humanity is (and is not) is independent of our beliefs about it — the truth can’t be inflated, deflated, whatever. Humanity is already much “lower” than you believe — in what we are, how we behave, and how we evaluate the rightness of that behavior — because you hold inflated beliefs about how we actually are, which is entirely independent of those beliefs and cannot be changed by you, me, or anyone else.
Yet the content of our beliefs is extremely important. Since the things we believe to be true of the world inform how we behave; and since many of our deepest beliefs about the world and our place within it are false; our consequent conclusions — including about how we can behave rightly — are false. So it is imperative that the truth be known, if we are to become better.
A final set of points: “Cynicism” and realism are not the same things. “Self-loathing” and knowing oneself are not the same things. If a man can’t find value in being alive while knowing that humans aren’t metaphysically special — which is essentially what I aim to prove — then he is a victim of the society that has inflated his self-image to unreal proportions, as are the many non-human animals who have suffered to indulge the man’s narcissistic, self-loathing need to assert his imagined superiority. I hope to liberate man from his false beliefs, and in doing so, to liberate the rest of the planet he subjugates.
Dan’s last blog post..Instructive
December 23rd, 2008 at 4:38 pm
To finish an incomplete sentence from the post I just published:
“Or, if you meant ‘rational’ in the self-preservational sense, I don’t feel a need to argue, though I probably could. I am not promoting a deeply selfish philosophy for all the good reasons I have mentioned thus far.”
Dan’s last blog post..Instructive
December 23rd, 2008 at 4:43 pm
I remain fluffily yours, Dan. Thanks for contributing to the site.
December 23rd, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Haha, music to my ears.
Thanks for moderating the discussion — well done.
Dan’s last blog post..Instructive
December 24th, 2008 at 5:45 am
I really dont give a sh*t about PETA. As far as I’m concerned, they’re a bunch of attention whores. GoCyclone, you’re completely right. It’s the corporations we should be after, not the people. and certainly not the ideals. Corporations are the ones that destroy, lie, kill, and promote evil. They got us into the current mess. They treat animals cruelly. Corporations are the enemy. They should be exterminated.
December 24th, 2008 at 5:49 am
(Accidentally hit enter) In my opinion, animals can be eaten. In the real world, the smarter, faster, better life form wins. Humans came out on top. That gives us the right to eat whatever the hell we want. What it doesn’t give us is the power to torture and treat animals cruelly.
December 24th, 2008 at 7:49 am
Sara, I have copied what you wrote above and pasted it below with a few minor changes to make a point. Your claim is that humans should have an interest in their own species first and so, presumably you think that justifies any sort of cruelty and suffering we inflict on animals of other species. Forgive me if I am misinterpreting what you are saying, but it seems pretty clear to me that that is your point i.e. humans are more important so non-human animals don’t matter at all.
The following takes your own words and changes the example from one of species membership to one of family membership. If you think that humans should be interested in their own species first, then you may also think that we should have an interest in our own families before other families too. I don’t disagree, but I don’t think that being more interested in my own family necessarily justifies making other families suffer needlessly.
My example:
“It seems to me that it is deeply sociopathic and irrational not to be interested in one’s own family first. Unless we’re prepared to dispense with modern psychology, I don’t view it as irrational or immoral in the slightest that a mother would care about her own daughter more than other people’s daughters. I would view denying preference for one’s own family as masochistic at worst; cynical at best. My own family remembers my trials and overlooks my flaws, supports my efforts, holds me when I cry, writes poems and books and makes music and art when I need intellectual and spiritual refreshment, and when I’m lucky even make loves to me. [don't think dirty, family can include spouses] I’m thankful for the organic, locally raised slave family that tends to my garden and grows my food. I appreciate the companionship of my house slave. But I am my mother’s daughter and therefore connected to my family in a way that is not to be diminished but rather celebrated and honored. We could do with less cynicism, isolation, and narcissism and we certainly don’t need more self-loathing. All these things have brought us to where we are now. We face grave problems. But the antidote is not homeopathy; that is, the cure is not to demote my family down a notch. A prescription of “you’re not as great as you think you are” is no way to inspire my family to improve.”
In this example, it is not my intention to say that eating chicken or “owning” a cat is the same as keeping slaves. My intention is to point out the fact that you can appreciate and love people in your own family more than people in other families and still not support the needless enslavement and suffering of other families. In the same way, you can appreciate and love humans more than non-human animals and still not support the torture and death of non-human animals. Right? As Dan said, being kind to humans and animals need not be mutually exclusive.
December 24th, 2008 at 8:00 am
Quan, I encourage you to take your own advice and follow the diet of a chimpanzee. If you do, 95% of your diet with be fruits and vegetables. 2-5% will be termites and 1% will be wild game animals. Of course, if you do as chimpanzees do, you’ll throw away the muscle tissue from any wild game you catch and then eat the brains and other internal organs. But don’t share any of it with your girlfriend. Chimpanzee males hunt in order to help establish dominance hierarchies, not to feed their families.
Of course, I realize that when you use chimpanzee behavior to justify your own behavior you thought that since chimpanzees are technically omnivores that means it is okay for you to eat bacon double cheeseburgers and other meaty, cheesy things at each and every meal. Well, that’s a fast ticket to heart disease. But you’ll be in good company. 1 in 2 men die from heart disease in this country. Odd that heart disease doesn’t seem to be a problem for true carnivores and omnivores.
December 24th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
I thought it would be fun to make a minor revision to “Anonymous’s last post, to prove a point.
“In my opinion, Jews can be gassed to death. In the real world, the smarter, faster, better race wins. Aryans came out on top. That gives us the right to kill whoever the hell we want. What it doesn’t give us is the power to torture and treat Jews cruelly.”
Again, I’m not comparing non-human animals to Jewish people. I am comparing the mindset of the Nazis that they were the “superior” race (without any support for such a proclamation) and so that justified doing whatever they wanted to the “inferior” race. Anonymous makes a similar proclamation that since humans are the “superior” species (without any support for such a proclamation) that we can kill and eat non-human animals without compunction.
Now, I’m sure many people will dismiss my point because they think I am lowering humans to the status of animals. Actually, I would point out the fact that humans are animals. No lowering of the human status necessary. The problem is that many people seem to believe that humans are at the level of gods and that all other animals are at the level of dirt.
I find it odd that some people will get so angry when one compares humans to animals. For example, despite the fact that Holocaust survivors have said many times that they were treated “like animals” it is apparently absurd to say that animals are treated like Holocaust victims.
Yet many of the same people who get so angry when one dare compare humans to non-human animals are very quick to point out that humans are, in fact, animals. I read an article recently (I wish I had kept it) in which the author was enraged that PETA would dare compare the beheading of a man on a bus in Canada to the deaths of animals in slaughterhouses (PETA was decrying both acts of violence). In the same article, the author states that it is absurd to compare the murder of a human with the killing of non-human animals and then goes on to say that it is okay to kill and eat animals because humans are animals and other animals eat animals. So, is it okay to compare humans to other animals or not? I’m confused.
And regardless of the human/animal status, is it okay to kill, eat and cause the suffering of another living, feeling being when doing so is wholly and absolutely unnecessary? Even if humans are the “best of the bestest and grander than your grandaddy” does that mean that we can treat others as if they don’t matter at all?
I, for one, refuse to accept that humans are “better” than other animals while humans continue rape, murder, pillage and destroy the Earth, other animals and themselves. I just don’t see what is so “top of the food chain” about that.
December 24th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
My – I guess we differ in our concepts of “fun”. At any rate, Happy Holidays, everyone.
December 24th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Matt, I have to say that your view of the human race is disturbingly bleak. And it seems to deeply cloud your argument.
As stated in the original article, we share PETA’s concern about the way animals are treated in the modern world. However, by using shock tactics they are often infringing on the dignity and sometimes safety of human beings. (See my point about the homeless apparently being exploited with fur). How do these tactics affect human beings? Do their rights and feelings get trampled on to ‘teach them a lesson’ about animal rights, or to use them as pawns in the overall tactic of trying to convey that message widely? Should people be made to suffer to make the point?
Human beings deserve certain standards of treatment as well.
Anyway – best holiday wishes to everyone. I’m off for a glass of wine.
December 28th, 2008 at 4:54 am
PETA is hypocritical and a terrorist group. There’s no almost about it. If there was ever a good idea in the head of any of them, I doubt they’re recognize it. Their stunts are nothing more then to cover up the fact that they are murderers. And as is typical of a radical group aimed at freeing animals from human torture, they forget that they’re torturing animals to do so, namely the rest of the people on the planet. I could almost laugh to think I’m sitting here with my cat writing about a group who thinks she should be dead in a dumpster or starving in the wild rather then cared for and loved.
December 28th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Humans are biologically and physiologically OMNIVORES. Trying to live without eating meat is not a sound diet because the human body needs it to be healthy.
What’s very bad is when people feed their kids a vegan diet. Their growing bodies, especially their brains and nervous systems, need the vitamins and other chemical compounds from meat and animal fats. Some vegetarian/vegan websites do have health warnings about this for children.
One of the most important things it’s difficult to get in a strict vegan diet is Vitamin B-12. Your body can store quite a lot of it but if you switch from a properly balanced omnivore diet to a vegan one, and don’t take vitamin supplements, you’ll end up with brain damage when your stores of B-12 run out. I learned about this from a medical journal that had an article about a patient with a mysterious sudden onset of what appeared to be senile dementia. Eventually a Dr. recognized the symptoms of vitamin B deficiency and gave the man a large B-complex shot. He mostly recovered but had to quit his job due to some brain and nerve damage. He’d eaten normally for the first 30+ years of his life then switched to a vegan diet- without taking any supplements to make up for the lack of B vitamins and other vital compounds in red meat.
December 29th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Thanks for sharing your opinion about vegan diets Galane. The opinions of health professionals and nutritionists differ considerably from your opinion though.
“It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases”¦ A vegetarian, including vegan, diet can meet current recommendations for all”¦ nutrients”¦ Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence. Vegetarian diets offer a number of nutritional benefits, including lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein as well as higher levels of carbohydrates, fiber, magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants such as vitamins C and E and phytochemicals. Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices than nonvegetarians, as well as lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease; vegetarians also show lower blood cholesterol levels; lower blood pressure; and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer.”
[Source: http://www.eatright.org/cps/rd.....U_HTML.htm
January 7th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
I think that PETA is like the well meaning but sometimes bumbling younger sibling that most of us have or know. They are bringing issues into the public eye by being very out and sensationalistic and sometimes those things backfire but I think that the heart is in the right place, especially with the giving the fur coats to homeless people, which makes two points at the same time–not letting the animal go to waste but also lowering the appeal of fur. I think that is actually very smart.
jh
bodaweightloss
February 16th, 2009 at 6:42 am
Dan, you compared PeTA and a serial killer, is that really what you want to do in defending PeTA?
I support better treatment for animals, but PeTA go too far … they want NO animal control at all, of any sort. The chaos that would result if they were granted their wish makes them irrelevant for having that goal at all, if PeTA’s goal was more sensible and their actions more reasonable I think they would have achieved more by this point.
February 17th, 2009 at 8:28 am
Get a grip Scott. PETA wants people to stop using animals as property. That doesn’t mean you can’t use a humane mouse trap to control the mouse population in your home. Just like the chaos didn’t ensue when those irrational beings (women) were allowed to vote (as many male chauvanists claimed would happen), chaos will not reign if people stop eating, wearing and otherwise enslaving animals for our own selfish purposes.
As Alice Walker (a prominent women’s rights leader) said – “The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for whites or women for men.”
February 17th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Thanks Matt — excellent points. I would add that Scott’s point about what PETA supposedly believes constitutes a straw man fallacy — “PETA believes X (unsubstantiated, straw man), and X would lead to chaos (unsubstantiated); therefore PETA’s entire mission is misguided.” To the point about animal control, I would also add (as I have noted throughout this thread) that humans are animals, and of course PETA would not be against voluntary human population control.
Scott, regarding the second part of your straw man argument (that a lack of “animal control” would cause massive “chaos”), it seems you must wonder how the world ever got along prior to human dominion, given that humans have only been controlling (eradicating and enslaving) other animals for the past 10,000 years — a blink of an eye in terms of the world’s biological history. I also imagine it must perplex you that the world’s declining biological health correlates precisely with increasing human domination (”control”) of other species.
Scott, you also said, “Dan, you compared PeTA and a serial killer, is that really what you want to do in defending PeTA?” First of all, I didn’t compare PETA to a serial killer. Rather, I constructed an easy-to-understand — or so I thought — illustrative case proving that charging hypocrisy fails to constitute a valid counterargument. Do you deny that? I can’t tell one way or the other, from what you’ve stated here.
Also, (and this is admittedly guesswork), your quote choice suggests that you didn’t read through the extensive back-and-forth of this thread, since I wrote it very near to the beginning. I recommend reading through the rest, if you haven’t already. I think it’s a pretty good illustration of just how robust the arguments on the side of animal welfare are, especially when compared with the typical arguments people make when attempting to justify the morally repugnant but personally convenient status quo.
March 19th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
There’s something being missed here:
PETA is a part of the animal rights movement (if not leading it), however, their tactics are nothing new to movements that fight against the injustices in this world.
On another post I mentioned that we (eco-animal-friendly individuals) all go above and beyond for the reason that those who are responsible for the injustices go above and beyond to hide the truth (and even go as low as discrediting and lying about their opposition ““ which is where most people get their information ““ many of those lies have been repeated on this post). They do this so that they may continue with their despicable acts of cruelty.
Another thing we’re forgetting is the human animal is at the bottom of the dependence scale. This means that we as a species rely on the existence of all life around us to survive. So to say that animals are not as important as humans is a lie. In many ways they (and nature) are more important. Which is why we need to become humble in order to save the world and create peace. If we continue on this ignorant and arrogant path, there will be nothing left to save.
I also mentioned in a previous post that I feel that the animal rights, environmental conservation, and human rights communities need to work together in order reach the common goal of peace on earth (for all living beings) since we’re all connected anyway (plant, animal, human = earthling: Life = Life).
It’s useless to complain about an organization that does so much to improve the lives of many. I think PETA is great. I imagine the reason why people don’t like PETA is because they are either jealous or don’t want to know the truth and would rather continue on their paths of destruction.
If you really want peace in this world and you just don’t like the tactics that PETA and others use to get the message out, what ideas do you have that you believe would help all us create a humane and just world for all? And how far would you go to save the lives of many, including your own? Think about it.
Stop complaining and contribute to the solution rather than the problem.
Peace:)
March 24th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
“Odd that heart disease doesn’t seem to be a problem for true carnivores and omnivores.”
Probably because they don’t eat trans fats, vegetable oils, soy, the milk of other species, refined carbohydrates or other things that aren’t a natural part of an omnivorous human diet.
And Matt, “The opinions of health professionals and nutritionists ” – argumentum ad verecundiam. A logical fallacy.
PETA, according to their website, don’t believe in animal testing for drugs/medical procedures. That puts them in the fruitloop basket as far as I’m concerned. They also – again, from their website – think keeping animals as pets is wrong. It’s not their vegetarianism that gets up my nose – I have a great respect for people who are vegetarians for ethical reasons, although I do not think the evidence supports it being a healthier alternative than a healthy meat-inclusive diet – it’s their stance on medical testing and domestic animals.
Rebekka’s last blog post..The Dollhouse (no really specific spoilers)
March 25th, 2009 at 7:43 am
Rebekka,
“Odd that heart disease doesn’t seem to be a problem for true carnivores and omnivores.”
- Are you talking about the non-human animal world? If you are, you’re right. If your talking about the human race, you’re wrong. Meat and Fish can cause not only heart disease but a variety of other diseases. Let’s face it, our bodies are not made to eat animal-based foods.
“PETA, according to their website, don’t believe in animal testing for drugs/medical procedures.”
- True. Not only is it cruel, It’s unnecessary. Animal testing has been proven to be inconclusive. Plus, now a days, there are so many other ways to test for drugs and other products without using animals.
“keeping animals as pets is wrong.”
- Animals should have never been domesticated in the first place. Back in the day, people never thought about how it would affect the animal. They did this for their own purposes and not in the best interest of animals. Now a days, there is an overpopulation crisis due to the breeding industry. The best option is to adopt.
Saying “keeping animals as pets is wrong.” doesn’t mean that one doesn’t love animal companions. In fact, those who believe this “keeping animals…wrong” probably love their animal companions more, because there animal companions are treated as a member of the family.
I used to work at a shelter where people brought in their animal companions for some of the dumbest reasons, proving that PETA’s stance on “pets” is not as crazy as you say it is.
What it comes down to it, animals should be free and not used and exploited for human purposes. To do so, does not reflect well on our species.
“I do not think the evidence supports it being a healthier alternative than a healthy meat-inclusive diet”
- With all due respect, you really haven’t done any research on this. The evidence is there, you just have to look for it. Unfortunately, the meat-related-food industries (as well as pharmaceutical-related, gun, alcohol, etc.) have all the money to hide the truth and discredit those who want to expose it.
The truth is, we live in a capitalistic dictatorship (not a democracy or a republic). Don’t be fooled by other people’s intentions. Their only concern is their profits, not how it affects the rest of the world. To them, money is more important than life itself. Sad but true.
Organizations like PETA and Greenpeace have to go above and beyond because the POWER$ that be are just too strong and subtle hints get swept under the rug. And let’s face it, people need a “kick in the head” every once in a while to wake up. We’ve been dumbed down to a point that the smell of smoke is not enough for us to react. We have to see the fire in order to survive. In this way animals are smarter than us. They have instinct.
Keep this in mind, there are humane alternatives to everything. It’s in our planet’s best interest to be humane and kind to all living beings.
Luckily there a many sites that help you make the compassionate choice. Do a search for Ethical Shopping, Caring Consumers, etc. You’ll find plenty of animal-friendly, human-friendly, and environmentally-friendly products, and companies to avoid.
Enjoy,
Peace:)
Eric
July 26th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
“Meat and Fish can cause not only heart disease but a variety of other diseases”
Riiiiight… I’m sure if you look hard enough, you could find some “life threatening” effects of soybeans and corn on your body if you wanted to, but that’s not really your goal now, is it? You’re trying to find unproven “evidence” that will make you feel good inside before going off to bed. That’s just one opinion, and a dumb one, if I may say so… Thousands of years humans have survived on an omnivorous diet, and suddenly now we are in grave danger of all meat? Get real… Call me ignorant, but I think that most vegetarians/vegans out there eat plants only because they can’t hear the screams when they slice it into thin pieces.
I’m pretty sure thousands and thousands of poor creatures die of hunger because of our crops, not only while growing them, but while harvesting them, as we hurt many many innocent creatures with our plows and farming machinery, and that’s a fact… Does that cross the minds of the usual PETA activits? Probably not, but who the hell cares? Sharks, lions, tigers, komodo dragons, worms etc. would eat me at any time if given the chance. Why should I back down? I don’t see any equality between humans and animals, nor does any other animal, for that matter. It’s not nazism, it’s common sense. My ancestors did not fight to be on top of the food chain so that I could simply feel “guilty” for eating another animal. It is in my gene code – I want to survive, I want to harvest and properly maintain my surroundings, and you won’t stop me from doing that with your bitching (yes, protesting in front of fur shops and driving innocent people of out business is called bitching).
PS: How many PETA supporters use insulin on a daily basis? How many of them are alive today thanks to our “animal cruelty”?
August 11th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Hang on, I will comment on this after I finish eating this wonderful ham and cheese sandwich, and a nice cold glass of milk.
Who Linked To This Post?
Welcome! The comment box is all yours to say what you like. Just make sure you use a real name, not a site or company, so you don't get sent to the spam bin. (That makes us sad.)