Question about PETA

  • Thread starter Thread starter spencelo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
DCNBILL said:
Which is a defense, and then you go and try to justify your wrongdoing. :tsktsk:
Click to expand...
This is an odd complaint: I’m not in any way defending PETA’s goals or methods, or anything they do. I’m merely pointing out what they don’t do. If someone thought PETA was in favor of terrorist bombings, it’s not a defense to point out that that simply isn’t true. What do you have against promoting truth?
 
spencelo said:
To promote better understanding. Why do you think this isn’t reasonable?
Click to expand...
I do not see anything unreasonable to defend anything or anyone from falsities. I see unreasonable promising the intent of not doing so in order to get opinions and then rejecting the promise itself. That goes immediately against the principle of not contradiction and it kills immediately any discussion.
 
spencelo said:
This is an odd complaint: I’m not in any way defending PETA’s goals or methods, or anything they do. I’m merely pointing out what they don’t do. If someone thought PETA was in favor of terrorist bombings, it’s not a defense to point out that that simply isn’t true. What do you have against promoting truth?
Click to expand...
I think that your actions are not about truth but about a very specific agenda, that is when the red flag comes out.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9834098&postcount=125
 
Cristiano said:
I do not see anything unreasonable to defend anything or anyone from falsities. I see unreasonable promising the intent of not doing so in order to get opinions and then rejecting the promise itself. That goes immediately against the principle of not contradiction and it kills immediately any discussion.
Click to expand...
You are grasping, and this will be my last response on the matter. Again, I have not defended PETA’s goals, policies or anything they’ve done in any way in this thread, so I kept my promise. Quoting PETA directly, without commentary, in order to promote better understanding does not qualify as a “defense.”
 
spencelo, I eluded to this in another thread of your’s. PETA is an animal rights organization not to be confused with animal welfare (ie ASPCA). Description below:
ANIMAL RIGHTS VS ANIMAL WELFARE - What you should know
Click to expand...
OVERVIEW
Click to expand...
Animal Welfare supports humane treatment and use of animals and believes that humans have a responsibility for their care. Animal Welfare includes responsible care of animals used by humans for service, research, food, education, those kept in zoos or sanctuaries, and especially those animals kept by pet owners. Animal welfare is based on a principle of ownership of animals, a common sense approach that animals should be treated well and that animal cruelty is wrong. Animal welfare sets standards and guidelines for animal use and management based on sound veterinary and animal husbandry research and practices.
Click to expand...
Animal Rights (AR) is a radical ideology that attempts to elevate species of animals to equality with humans by applying human interpretations of morality. A core tenet of animal rights philosophy is that no species on this planet is better than another; therefore, humans have no right to dominate over, use, breed, or eat nonhuman species.
Click to expand...
Basic principles of animal rights philosophy are:
Click to expand...
http://www.ncraoa.com/image2/bulletblack.gifThe ability of animals to feel pain and pleasure puts them on a plane of moral equivalence with humans. This moral significance of animals necessitates that we reject the use and treatment of animals as resources or as property. Use of animals for food, research, and entertainment must be abolished and not merely regulated. (Peter Singer) (1)
Click to expand...
http://www.ncraoa.com/image2/bulletblack.gifAnimals have a life of their own that is of importance to them apart from their utility to us; therefore, logic implies that animals have the same right as humans to pursue their life without human interference.
Click to expand...
http://www.ncraoa.com/image2/bulletblack.gifThe line between human and non-human animals is an artificial construct designed to facilitate and justify the exploitation of non-human animals. (2)
Click to expand...
Source & further reading: http://www.ncraoa.com/AR_AW_WhatYouShouldKnow.html
Click to expand...
Frankly I do not like PETA because of its stance that animals hold the same (if not greater) rights and value as humans. When you stop valuing your own humanity one tends to become misanthropic, thus it is no wonder why some many PETA people are pro-abortion.

People (for the)
Exceptional
Treatment (of their)
Agenda
 
This thread is interesting to me because for the longest time PETA was a almost hypthetical to me. I knew that there was that crazy group out there but it wasn’t something that real people joined, it was just a media thing.

And then a couple years ago I met my first PETA members. All three of them are devout catholics who attend mass daily.

I have a lot of criticism of PETA, but I do think it’s silly to bring up abortion when talking about them. I mean really, that’s not what the organization addresses. That’s kind of like not liking the NFL because they haven’t issued statements on basketball. If basketball is what you want, go to the NBA.
 
BlueEyedLady said:
Vegan here. I despise PETA. They harm their own cause with over the top media circuses, they misuse funds, commit assault, focus on the worst, most insignificant causes imaginable, and actively campaign to get kids to defy and disrespect their parents.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your thoughts. Can you give an example of a PETA campaign that tries to get kids to defy and disrespect their parents?
 
BlueEyedLady said:
I have a lot of criticism of PETA, but I do think it’s silly to bring up abortion when talking about them. I mean really, that’s not what the organization addresses. That’s kind of like not liking the NFL because they haven’t issued statements on basketball. If basketball is what you want, go to the NBA.
Click to expand...
👍

I’ve also been unable to find any credible source of the “80% pro-abortion” statistic either; until I see it, I will have to assume it was fabricated. Even the “I hate PETA” website grudgingly admits that based on PETA’s own pro-life/pro-abortion boards, it seems to run about 50-50.

Jala
 
spencelo said:
This is an odd complaint: I’m not in any way defending PETA’s goals or methods, or anything they do. I’m merely pointing out what they don’t do. If someone thought PETA was in favor of terrorist bombings, it’s not a defense to point out that that simply isn’t true. What do you have against promoting truth?
Click to expand...
I think your earlier correction about PETA’s stance on abortion was appropriate. Someone made the claim that PETA supported abortion, and you showed that was a false claim.

Doing so isn’t a defense of PETA. It is correcting a false impression.

BTW, I do not support PETA. The issue of animal welfare is important, and PETA has done some good. But PETA has also undermined the movement with extreme and morally repulsive positions. Plus PETA uses advertising tactics which are degrading and offensive to women.

PETA is not a complete fail. But I would give it a D+ at best. It needs to clean up its act.
 
PETA is a horrible, horrible organization and the only way any sane person could defend is being ignorant of them. They are so much worse than a bunch of eccentric people being passionate about the rights of animals.

They oppose all forms of animal domestication, including owning pets. They see owning a pet as akin to slavery. Which is putting human psyche on an animal, which is idiotic at best. They also kill far, far more animals in their shelters than any ASPCA does.

They support and give money to the Animal Liberation Front, which is a domestic terrorist group. You know those crazy people that break into labs and zoos to “save” the animals? Yeah, PETA supports them. Oh, and this isn’t some fringe crazies, these are the leaders of PETA that are supporting these things.

Speaking of labs, PETA is strongly against animal testing, even for medicinal purposes. Animal testing sounds cruel, but it is a neccessary evil if we are to develop medicine for human usage. As if placing animal welfare above human life wasn’t bad enough, one of their top people uses insulin, an animal product. So she wants all animal testing to stop, which will kill people since they won’t have medicine anymore, while she herself uses the same things she’s trying to stop. Hypocrit.

And of course I could go into the sexually immoral practices they use, such as having their causes read by naked women, which doesn’t so much as support their cause, but titilate the audience.

PETA is a horrible organization and is just plain evil, not to mention stupid. Stage hogs at best and despicable at worst. If you want to support an animal welfare group, support one that isn’t crazy. There’s WWF if you want to support wild animals, and ASPCA if you want to support domesticated animals.
 
PETA published a comic book. No, I will not post a link. The cover depicts an older man in typical clothing people wear to go fishing in colder weather. He has a look of sadistic glee on his face as he uses a knife to gut a fish. The fish has a facial expression that indicates it’s still alive during the gutting. Part of the text reads: “Your father loves killing!”

Yep, whenever good, old dad says he’s going for a drive, he’s really looking for stray dogs or cats which he stuffs into his trunk in a cage. Then when everybody’s asleep, he goes out to the garage and guts them, one by one. That was what I thought of when I saw the image.

Or the time some girls in their late teens or early 20’s carried PETA signs in Detroit. The problem? They were all nude.

PETA is high on my list of whack-job groups.

People
Eating
Tasty
Animals

Peace,
Ed
 
Dale_M said:
I think your earlier correction about PETA’s stance on abortion was appropriate. Someone made the claim that PETA supported abortion, and you showed that was a false claim.

Doing so isn’t a defense of PETA. It is correcting a false impression.

BTW, I do not support PETA. The issue of animal welfare is important, and PETA has done some good. But PETA has also undermined the movement with extreme and morally repulsive positions. Plus PETA uses advertising tactics which are degrading and offensive to women.

PETA is not a complete fail. But I would give it a D+ at best. It needs to clean up its act.
Click to expand...
Thanks Dale. My understanding of PETA is that they haven’t actually changed their substantive positions – only their tactics. They have always maintained the following:
Code: 
Animals Are Not Ours to Eat
Animals Are Not Ours to Wear
Animals Are Not Ours to Experiment On
Animals Are Not Ours to Use for Entertainment
Animals Are Not Ours to Abuse in Any Way
 
spencelo said:
Thanks for your thoughts. Can you give an example of a PETA campaign that tries to get kids to defy and disrespect their parents?
Click to expand...
Look up the 2003 ‘Your Mommy Kills Animals’ material. (There’s also ‘Your Daddy Kills Animals’).

They also make it a habit to go in to schools and encourage kids to go vegan with or without their parents’ approval. I am a proud vegan and I know that it can be very healthy at any stage of life. BUT, a vegan diet must be well planned and you have to have more than a basic understanding of nutrition to do it, as well as a commitment to making sure that you eat right. Giving up meat and cheese to eat nothing but potato chips and carrot sticks is not going to cut it. Kids do not have the knowledge, discipline, or resources to undertake a vegan diet on their own. Encouraging that is downright irresponsible, especially when it comes to kids that are still growing and developing.
 
BlueEyedLady said:
Look up the 2003 ‘Your Mommy Kills Animals’ material. (There’s also ‘Your Daddy Kills Animals’).

They also make it a habit to go in to schools and encourage kids to go vegan with or without their parents’ approval. I am a proud vegan and I know that it can be very healthy at any stage of life. BUT, a vegan diet must be well planned and you have to have more than a basic understanding of nutrition to do it, as well as a commitment to making sure that you eat right. Giving up meat and cheese to eat nothing but potato chips and carrot sticks is not going to cut it. Kids do not have the knowledge, discipline, or resources to undertake a vegan diet on their own. Encouraging that is downright irresponsible, especially when it comes to kids that are still growing and developing.
Click to expand...
I don’t know much about those campaigns but will look into them. Curious: do you have an opinion on HSUS?
 
spencelo said:
I don’t know much about those campaigns but will look into them. Curious: do you have an opinion on HSUS?
Click to expand...
By and large I like HSUS. They tend to be more moderate and focus on solutions that advance science and medicine while reducing suffering. They tend to attack problems with multi step solutions that address not only the negative action that is happening, but address why that action in necessary.

By and large I find vegans insufferable. There are some moderate, thinking ones out there, but for the most part its the one-track “Animals deserve __________ no matter what the cost or problems associated with doing it!” sound bites with no logic or reasoning behind them.

I grew up on a farm in the Midwest. I’ve been hunting. I understand animals, ecosystems, the environment, biodiversity, conservation efforts, safety etc. And rest assured it is all a lot more complex than “Killing animals is bad!”. I can also assure you that despite what PETA says farmers, hunters, and researchers are not evil, sadistic people who like to see things suffer and die for their own selfish desires. Most of them care very deeply about the environment and their land. That doesn’t mean that every now and then I don’t think they’re misguided, but I do think that they understand the big picture and try to do what is best.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top