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

[Leeza]

Well, yeah, but PETA is still way over the top.

I agree that some of their methods are drastic, but sometimes drastic measures are required in order for some people to see even an inkling about what's behind their style fashion and the tender veal on their dinner plate, etc.

Yes, these are only animals, but so are your pets. Just put your pet in the place of these animals and imagine them going through what those other animals are going through. Same difference. You'd want them to be treated humanely and that is the goal of PETA. Well, yeah, I guess they would be happier if the whole world was vegan, but I'm pretty sure that even PETA would eventually settle for just the humane treatment of all animals.

[udsuna]

There's just one problem in arguing about cows: they'd go extinct if it weren't for us. Humans are the only things stopping every semi-predatory animal from coming down on bovines like the wrath of god. Buffalo were big, intelligent herd animals that wolves were still capable of bringing down. Six wolves could concievably kill dozens of cattle with the same effort. You do the math.
Cows are also one of the few species that need aid birthing. Most animals don't have problems giving birth. Cows, without something to help, would lose about half of all calfs and a quarter of all mothers to various issues. The cow is also not smart enough, nor able enough, to migrate and would eventually deplete the area to the point that they start dying of starvation.
All said, cows NEED us a helluva lot more than we need them. We can use other animals and plants, but they'd all die without us. Every last one of them. So, in return for us giving their species prosperity, we just skim a little off the top. Like taxes, only better tasting.

[Dr Unne]

There's a difference between "Animals shouldn't be treated cruelly" and "Animals should be treated the same as human beings".

Simple question: a house is on fire, inside is a baby and a cat. Which do you save first? Anyone who answers anything but the baby, for any reason whatsoever, is immoral by my standards.

[qq=eestlinc]Humans are no better than any other animal, plant, bacteria, etc.[/qq]

By what standard? You honestly consider human beings to be equal to worms? You consider yourself no better than any weed growing in my backyard?

[udsuna]

Even if we're on the same level as they are... who cares? If we are no better or worse than any other animal, then we have no obligation to be any kinder than they do. And if you knew what tuberculosis (a worm that eats muscle tissue of the LIVING victem) causes as far as suffering, you'd never consider any slaughter method close to that horrific.
If we're better, we have higher standards to hold, if not, we don't.

[Leeza]

udsuna, you're contradicting yourself. First you say If we are no better or worse than any other animal, then we have no obligation to be any kinder than they do. and then you say If we're better, we have higher standards to hold, if not, we don't. If we're better, like you say we are, then we should set higher standards so that we would put ourselves above being barbarians who know nothing about kindness or compassion.

Simple question: a house is on fire, inside is a baby and a cat. Which do you save first? Anyone who answers anything but the baby, for any reason whatsoever, is immoral by my standards. - Dr Unne

Apples and oranges. Of course the baby would be saved, but we're not talking about a burning building in this thread. It's a discussion on PETA and PETA is about animal abuse and stopping it, not about choosing between your pet or your child.

By what standard? You honestly consider human beings to be equal to worms? You consider yourself no better than any weed growing in my backyard? - Dr Unne

I don't know about eest, but I don't consider worms to be equal to human beings, but that also doesn't mean that I'm entitled to squish everyone that I come across instead of walking around it. I do walk on the weeds though.

The same goes for animals that are harvested for eating. Just because we have a brain that's more developed than their's does not mean that we're entitled to be unduly cruel in our methods. It should mean that we're capable of being better than that.

udsuna, all of those animals somehow managed to survive on their own before man domesticated them.

[MecaKane]

Well, yeah, I guess they would be happier if the whole world was vegan, but I'm pretty sure that even PETA would eventually settle for just the humane treatment of all animals.

No, they wouldn't. If we were all vegans, and everything else PETA wants right now happened, according to them we'd have to stop driving cars to avoid hitting one of the thousands of animals roaming wild because, of course, we can't keep them as pets or confine them to farms. Too barbaric, far too barbaric.

[edczxcvbnm]

Leeza...PETA was about stopping animal abuse but that is not what they are for anymore. They crossed that line a LOOOOOOONG time ago. How exactly is a seeing eye dog abuse to an animal? They have a good house, get feed well and help out people. OOOH the humanity of it all. How can we sit here and watch this "abuse"?

Or what about their campain on college campuses to drink beer instead of milk. They were promoting illegal activities but getting those under 21 to drink beer instead of milk.

They are a bunch of wack-jobs.

[Emerald Aeris]

"Thinking that human beings and other animals have equal rights is immoral by my standards."

There's a different in thinking they should have equal rights, and that they should have more rights.

"Because they don't fight back. If cows were capable of rational thought, you would think that after thousands of years of domestication that they might realize "Huh, I'm only munching on this grass so that I can be milked and/or slaughtered" and do something about it. But they don't."

So if you beat an infant, and it doesn't fight back, what does that mean? Just because they aren't intelligent enough to fight back doesn't mean they don't think and feel. It means they're simple. Simple doesn't make it right to kill them. Do you think it's ok to do the same to mentally disabled people?

"I do agree that there are better ways of killing food, better ways of raising food, and pretty much better ways of doing anything that has to do with food, any kind of food. But there are also much better ways of getting your point across."

I completely agree. I'm just saying that it's wrong for people to just disregard PETA completely as if they're just complete loonies. I'm saying that they may be extremists, but they believe that animals deserve better, and I agree. I don't agree with all of their beliefs and methods, but sometimes you need extremists to get something done.

"You speak of extremism in the movements for black rights and women's rights, but the only extremes they went to consisted of getting locked up for speaking in public. That's hardly as extreme as sending a gift basket to a psychopathic cannibal to prove a point."

Flesh is flesh to them. So what? How would you feel if someone ate your dog? That's how it is to them.

Besides I wasn't refering to extremes there, I was refering to the fact that someone said PETA wouldn't even accomplish anything (which they already have changed things). My point was that those rights groups were told that too, and they most certainly did change things.

"Honestly, I do feel that if PETA were a little more dignified and a lot more humble about their message, they would have more respect, and once you have someone's respect you obviously have their attention."

I disagree. People don't listen. They don't listen to studies done, they don't listen to pictures, they don't care. People are perfectly happy eating their steaks, and they don't appreciate someone telling them it's immoral. Not that it justifies their extreme means, but really, people don't listen or care 99% of the time.

"I'm pretty sure PETA is in the realm of animals having more rights than people."

Uh, where'd you get that from?

"Every living, breathing creature deserves to be treated humanely and humans, who are the ones with the larger brain capacity, should have the mentality to show compassion towards these creatures in the methods that they use to butcher them before eating them."

Finally someone who agrees somewhat. Personally I think that with our intelligence we should be smart enough to protect animals and the planet, but instead we destroy ourselves, and hurt everything else. It's profoundly disappointing.

"There's just one problem in arguing about cows: they'd go extinct if it weren't for us. Humans are the only things stopping every semi-predatory animal from coming down on bovines like the wrath of god."

And guess who's fault it is that cows are like that? Does that justify cruel slaughtering and horrible conditions? Shouldn't we instead protect and help them?

"Cows are also one of the few species that need aid birthing. Most animals don't have problems giving birth."

Wrong. There are plenty of birth complications in other animals.

"So, in return for us giving their species prosperity, we just skim a little off the top. Like taxes, only better tasting."

And by "skim a little off the top" you mean kill all of them, right? Kill their babies so we can have tender meet, keeping them in awful conditions most of the time. You make it like they're living in a utopia where humans take care of them. Ugh. That's all I can say to that.

"Simple question: a house is on fire, inside is a baby and a cat. Which do you save first? Anyone who answers anything but the baby, for any reason whatsoever, is immoral by my standards."

Of course I would save the baby. But I don't think that really comes in here. Animal rights doesn't mean they should be equal.

"By what standard? You honestly consider human beings to be equal to worms? You consider yourself no better than any weed growing in my backyard?"

The question of better or worse is a difficult one. Obviously I do think I'm better than a weed or a worm, but specifically why, especially when you're comparing much more complex and intelligent animals is hard. Because of the attrocities that humans commit, do you think there could be animals that are better than humans? What criteria makes us better, or an animal better? Why that criteria over others?

"Even if we're on the same level as they are... who cares? If we are no better or worse than any other animal, then we have no obligation to be any kinder than they do."

Who cares? Why treat other humans with respect then? That's not logically consistant. I think we do have a moral obligation to be kind. Most aren't intelligent enough to know how their actions hurt, especially on a global scale. We are though. Aside from greed and cruelty, what's our excuse?

"And if you knew what tuberculosis (a worm that eats muscle tissue of the LIVING victem) causes as far as suffering, you'd never consider any slaughter method close to that horrific."

Oh please. I work in a lab half of the week, and sometimes with TB. Tuberculosis is not a worm, it's species of bacteria. Besides that, TB usually inhabits visceral tissue. Even still, does TB know what it's doing? No. Do we? Yes!

[Leeza]

ed, stopping animal abuse is still their main goal. I agree they do go overboard in some cases, but most of it is to bring attention to something else. For example, the seeing-eye dogs bring attention to the servitude of animals in circuses, etc. and these are really what it's all about. Seeing-eye dogs just happen to be the main focus of attention by the media and, of course, anyone can see that they're not being abused.

Same with the beer thing. It's to bring attention to the painful existence of the cows that the milk comes from and they wouldn't get quite the attention if they asked the college students to drink fruit juice.

[omnitarian]

Leeza, I agree that the animals we eat deserve the most uncruel treatment possible, but that's not what PETA is about anymore. PETA isn't saying that the animals we eat should be treated kindly. They're saying "eating animals is wrong, period".

"animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other purpose"

(Wow, I made this post, then realized it was exactly like ed's.)

Edit: In response to Leeza's and Aeris's above posts: Sure, PETA is in favor some good things, but I don't see how that can justify their violent and extremist measures, and some of their more unsettling goals.

I wouldn't abstain from condemning a violent and extremist organization just because they share some of my views. In fact, if I wanted the world to actually take my views seriously, I would make absolutely sure that my views aren't being misrepresented.

[eestlinc]

Just because we can "think" and "talk" and all that doesn;t mean our big mass of cells is any more important than any other non-human mass of cells. I find the arrogance of "we are clearly the superior species and therefore we can do whatever we want" to be just as immoral as whatever it is about treating animals fairly that you find immoral.

I'm not going to give up my life to save some worms, but I don't think any worms would give up their lives (willingly) to save a human either. It's the nature of living things to preserve their own kind first. Just because we as humans are better at it than many other species doesn't make us more important.

[udsuna]

udsuna, you're contradicting yourself. First you say If we are no better or worse than any other animal, then we have no obligation to be any kinder than they do. and then you say If we're better, we have higher standards to hold, if not, we don't. If we're better, like you say we are, then we should set higher standards so that we would put ourselves above being barbarians who know nothing about kindness or compassion.

Sarcasm and irony.... those were the tones of that statement. And we are at higher standards, compared to the rest of the predatory species of the world, we're rediculously kinder. I was proposing the cross argument to defeat logic with logic. *IF* we're no better than animals, we're under no obligation for kindness. 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.

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

How could you POSSIBLY think the modern cow could survive? It evolved in a very mild environment, and ancient humanity centuries ago domesticated them. No way to reverse that damage. In nature, this relationship is called symbiosis, and it's kept species alive that would have otherwise failed centuries ago.

[Wiegrahf42]

I've been on this forum less then a week, and this topic has mushroomed quickly; I've created a monster. My original aim was just to discuss PETA being immoral itself, not the morality of our subjagation of animals. I eat a cow and it becomes part of me, then I die and then return to Mother Earth who bore me... Wait a minute did I just quote Vulcan Raven?

[Leeza]

My original aim was just to discuss PETA being immoral itself, not the morality of our subjagation of animals.

PETA is about the morality of our subjagation of animals. How can you discuss PETA being immoral and not also discuss the immorality of what we do to animals?

*IF* we're no better than animals, we're under no obligation for kindness. 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.

We're entitled to exploit as we desire? Read eestlinc's post above in answer to this statement.

[DocFrance]

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