Not trying to be a troll, but PETA scares me...

"And we are at higher standards, compared to the rest of the predatory species of the world, we're rediculously kinder."

It's not comparable, because we know what exactly how much we're hurting things, and predators don't.

"And *IF* we're better, we're entitled to exploit as we desire. Either way, we win over anything that isn't an intelligent lifeform."

Just because we can doesn't mean it's ethical or moral. Since when is exploiting and abusing those weaker than us a moral thing to do?

"And I didn't mean tuburculosis, I meant trichinosis, my many apologies for crossing those two. I'm not infallible."

My point still stands. they can't possibly know the harm they do, we know, yet cause harm anyway.

"Two wrongs don't make a right. PETA is far, far from being justified in its extremist acts."

The things they do like arson are wrong, yes, but that doesn't mean that everything PETA says and does is also wrong, which seems to be the attitude for many in this thread.

My attitude towards PETA is the same as my attitude towards terroist groups. Most of the time the message is good but they are idiots in how they go about getting it across. Promoting illegal activities, arson in the name of their cause, calling those who don't believe in their cause evil. The only thing they have yet to do is kill people in the name of their cause. Do that and they are a full fledge terrorist organization.

That is why they get zero respect from so many people. They just crossed the line of reason so why even pay attention to them?

As I said above...what a bunch of wack jobs.

What's this about knowing vs. not knowing? I'm sorry, but the natural world is an insane and horrific world. My argument is simple: either we are a part of it, and thus subject to it's rules. Morality would, at best, be a joke and genetic defect. Don't agree with that theory, but it's the one you have to accept if you're in the "people are no better than animals" camp.
Or we are above it, and thus the entire universe is ours to exploit as we see fit. I can see environmentalism to preserve resources and thus protect our own for the generations to come. And to enjoy the beauty of the world. But the specific lifeforms themselves, as individuals, are as much tools to use as the trees we make homes and paper from. Don't over-exploit, but other than that do what helps yourself and your family and your species.
I'm not saying we should be unnecessarily cruel. That's just sick. But if it's useful to us, at this expence of an animal, it's not something I could see as wrong. I vote for the most humane method that doesn't make the process more difficult.

Oh, and if it were a matter of needing food, I'd be more than happy to turn my pets into a meal. We have a couple ponies, they could last a while. I'd be much more happy with the idea of going out and hunting for a meal, but hypotheticals aside, I'd still do it.

What I meant when I started this thread was simply; Do the Ends Justify the means?
In this case the ends are good; Better treatment for animals. But I feel the means are immoral and in some cases borderline terrorism. It's like looking at the French revolution. The French people were oppresessed and wished to change their government. But how they did this (i.e. Mass executions) was greatly below their lofty ideals. Same goes for the Bolsheviks.

"What's this about knowing vs. not knowing? I'm sorry, but the natural world is an insane and horrific world. My argument is simple: either we are a part of it, and thus subject to it's rules. Morality would, at best, be a joke and genetic defect. Don't agree with that theory, but it's the one you have to accept if you're in the "people are no better than animals" camp."

People are moral because we choose to be, because we know what we do, and can reason. Morality is hardly a genetic defect. Morality is a product of our intelligence and complex culture, a culture which has let us progress as much as we have.

I don't think you can look at the human race as anything but part of the animal world. But why does that mean we have to be "insane and horrific" as you put it? I really don't see how you could support that view at all. There are no "rules". Animals act according to their instincts and intellect. Their intellect generally isn't intelligent enough to understand things like dead and pain, ours is, and our behaviour reflects that. Talking about the world in terms of rules is ridiculous. This isn't a game. It's much more complex than that.

No better doesn't mean the same. You can be equal and different, I'll point out.

"Or we are above it, and thus the entire universe is ours to exploit as we see fit."

Where's the logic behind that? Why should we do something bad just because we can?

I suppose you just believe in supporting our own species above all, but when you can do so just as well without cruelty, I don't see why you'd think it's ok to exploit other species.

Anyone who thinks animals deserve the same rights as human beings has no idea what their rights are worth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emerald Aeris

No better doesn't mean the same. You can be equal and different, I'll point out.

---

The U.S. supreme court says thats not true. They say something thats different will always be better or worse. And i agree with them.

Who is saying same rights? Who in their right mind would think that cows should be able to vote? No one is saying that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emerald Aeris

Who is saying same rights? Who in their right mind would think that cows should be able to vote? No one is saying that!

---

Yet :shifty:

I think saying things like "Eating a cow and eating a human being is the same thing" shows that they DO think that animals and humans have equal rights. I'm all for the humane treatment of animals whenever possible, but not to the point where animals deserve equal treatment to human beings. They're either guilty of that belief, or guilty of gross exaggeration to the point where it's unclear what they believe. Quite possibly the latter.

I think the killing animals and eating them is natural, and if animals were capable of sentience, they would agree. I agree with udsuna. If you say that human beings should not harm animals, you're saying that you hold human beings to a HIGHER standard than you hold other animals. Why? Would it be more humane or more moral if I chased down a sick deer on foot and tore its throat out with my teeth? How can you say on one hand that human beings should be held to a stricter moral standard than other animals, and on the other hand that human beings are probably no better than animals? One thing that sets us apart from other animals is capacity for compassion, the ability to be above instinct, and the concept of morality itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emerald Aeris

I suppose you just believe in supporting our own species above all, but when you can do so just as well without cruelty, I don't see why you'd think it's ok to exploit other species.

---

Yep, own species, above all else. Unless we come across a similarly intelligent one some time in the future, then I'll still always think of humanity as my family and the other species as strangers.
And why isn't it ok? That's my question. Where is the moral obligation to take special effort to make things more comfortable for something other than people. When we manage to solve world hunger, end all wars, and cure all diseases- THEN, and only then, will animals be anything other than a secondary concern. If we have the resources to spare, fine, but we don't.
That being said, I still accept that there are those that go out of their way to hurt animals- and I'm a firm believer in that being wrong. To use animals for food/etc. is one thing, but to take any pleasure in the harming of another creature is just sick.
Although, I do think dolphins deserve better treatment than cattle. Any species with members that go out of there way to save human lives is more than deserving of the few extra cents I pay for my tuna. There's a difference between them and our typical foodstock.

PS. Me and Dr. Unne are in agreement. I do believe that's a first. *shrugs shoulders and walks away confused*

I aint going to say too much because its kinda late but i just wanna say that this is something like comparing black people when they were slaves to the white people to me. They live in the same world and i feel deserve at least the same respect. So yes you could technically eat your own speciies, its perfectly in your right, now is it in the standards of other's morals is another question, and thats basically where most people wont do things like that. I actually find most of what Unne has to say as some kind of arrogance to your own race as to necessarily being higher, i dont necessarily see it that way however. Everyone's right is the same as another's, its just the human's way of trying so hard to be higher than another and having to be supreme that we come with a concept such as other species are lower than us when we actually do the same things when it comes to living to the bare minimum...anyway i might post more later..strapped for time.

Tell you what: first non-human that tells me it deserves equal rights as me, gets them. No questions, no arguments, no objections. I don't even care HOW it's done. Sign language, writing, speaking, telepathy, keyboard, whatever. Just as long as it does it of its own volition, I'm more than good with it.

"I think saying things like "Eating a cow and eating a human being is the same thing" shows that they DO think that animals and humans have equal rights."

My interpretation is more that they feel it's wrong to eat things that feel pain when there are perfectly healthy alternatives, and they see eating living things as evil as we think that man is for eating a human.

"If you say that human beings should not harm animals, you're saying that you hold human beings to a HIGHER standard than you hold other animals. Why? Would it be more humane or more moral if I chased down a sick deer on foot and tore its throat out with my teeth? How can you say on one hand that human beings should be held to a stricter moral standard than other animals, and on the other hand that human beings are probably no better than animals? One thing that sets us apart from other animals is capacity for compassion, the ability to be above instinct, and the concept of morality itself."

That makes us different, not necessarily better. I hold us to a different standard because we're different.

"And why isn't it ok? That's my question. Where is the moral obligation to take special effort to make things more comfortable for something other than people. When we manage to solve world hunger, end all wars, and cure all diseases- THEN, and only then, will animals be anything other than a secondary concern. If we have the resources to spare, fine, but we don't."

There's no reason for us not to have all the resources, aside from greed and other problems inherent to our species. Besides, not eating meat is more economical. All the food wasted raising cattle and such could easily be used to feed people instead. The food industry is not near as efficient as it could be.

"Tell you what: first non-human that tells me it deserves equal rights as me, gets them. No questions, no arguments, no objections. I don't even care HOW it's done. Sign language, writing, speaking, telepathy, keyboard, whatever. Just as long as it does it of its own volition, I'm more than good with it."

People used to abuse people who spoke different languages with the same logic before their were translators, you know.

Hey, I'm going to start beating babies, and I'll continue to beat them until one tells me to stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emerald Aeris

Hey, I'm going to start beating babies, and I'll continue to beat them until one tells me to stop.

---

Human babies will eventually become functionally intelligent beings. No cow will ever do that. And I repeat myself, we switch over to vegetarian, the bovine species will CEASE TO EXIST. They will go extinct except for the ones in zoos.
All creatures feel pain. I'm not disagreeing on that. But the value of the hundred or so cows worth of beef that your average american puts away in a lifetime is nothing compared to the value of the human life itself.
Hundred cows or one person? I don't know how it's a hard choice.

Or, how about we make it a more argumentative number, assuming a person ate NOTHING but cattle, and said diet wouldn't kill you in a couple months. This hypothosis is to make the biggest argument AGAINST eating cattle that is sanely possible.

MATH: 1 person= 80yrs= 4180 weeks. Now, an entire cow would be enough meat of about two weeks (actually, it'd probably be around 3 weeks, but I'll give benefit of doubt) so that's 2080 (give or take) cows. A couple thousand and some odd bovines wouldn't achieve in their lives what the average human achieves in a year. Animals that would never have been alive to do anything at all if it weren't for us peoples.

When it all comes down to it, we are so far superior to almost any species of animal that you could argue our right to drive them into extinction at our convenience (could, I won't because I don't believe that helps humans survive better, but still could).
Find the first person who refuses to kill ants that have infected their home, never killed a spider or roach in his or her life, and would not swat a mosquito or fly, and I show you the only person that has any right to say eating meat is wrong.
I draw my line at humans, dolphins, and anything we can't benefit from the death of. If killing or harming it achieves nothing, then we shouldn't do it, but even if all we gain is time saved- well, I believe it's called "acceptable loss".

The people of PETA tick me off to no end. It seems like they would rather have a human die than an animal die. That's sick. I believe that endangered animals should be protected, but I wish they would leave those who eat meat alone. PETA REALLY needs a good spanking.

PETA is the reason why I cringe when I see Lisa Simpson sometimes. Childish brat...