DrTeeth
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
So you dragged up a picture of Hitler to counter a point nobody made?
A_Wanderer said:As opposed to letting them fall into Soviet hands?
Regardless the point is that it is silly to imply that because serial killers abuse animals that PETA is right ~ likewise it is silly to argue that because Hitler liked dogs that all animal lovers are unequivocally wrong.
Although it is completely fair to say that people who intimidate researchers and vandalise private property are doing things the wrong way. Furthurmore the argument that an animals life is on par with that of a human being, or that we should imbue animals with rights (are they to be given responsibilities?) yields poor results if conducted consistently. I not only have a problem with their actions, the core principles of animal rights are antithetical to human civilization.
What are peoples stances in regards to animal testing and using animal skins for fashion, or that seal hunt up in Canada.
Angela Harlem said:
I cant answer for you! Is it or not? Yes or no.
nbcrusader said:
If you have $200 to donate to a charity, is PETA more worthy than a cancer, AIDS, hunger, poverty, etc. charity?
dandy said:
i think using 'more worthy' creates a false dichotomy. it is possible to support both human and animal causes. it's not an either/or situation.
nbcrusader said:
No, it is not false. Unless you have unlimited funds, you will need to make a choice.
DrTeeth said:
Are you willing to extend that to all your expenses? Have you ever bought something like U2 tickets, when that money could have gone to cancer research?
nbcrusader said:
No, it is not false. Unless you have unlimited funds, you will need to make a choice.
dandy said:people can choose to spread their donation funds around to different causes, even with limited amounts of funds. using the $200 from your example, $100 to the SPCA, $100 to cancer research, if those are the causes they chose to support. it's up to each person to decide what causes they support and how much they can afford/want to give. worthiness is in the eye of the donor.
if you want to get into that argument, though, no one can tell anyone else what causes are more worthy of financial support--it's an individual decision. are international aid organizations 'more worthy' of financial support than rape crisis centres? is cancer research 'more worthy' than environmental protection research? it's not a heirarchy. people will decide what causes they're willing to support, and donating money to an animal rights group isn't a concious decision not to support the myriad of other causes in the universe.
Irvine511 said:are there certain charities that receive more funds than others due to their media exposure -- certainly, many people, including myself, made donations to the Red Cross after the Katrina debacle, but since so many of us will do that in response to a well publicized disaster or crisis, other organizations suffer.
DrTeeth said:
Are you willing to extend that to all your expenses? Have you ever bought something like U2 tickets, when that money could have gone to cancer research?
nbcrusader said:
That is a valid question, though for a different principle.
On what grounds can we say "not enough is done" for cause "X", when at the same time we enjoy various luxuries in our daily lives?
For example, is one truly concerned with world hunger when their TIVO subscription could feed a couple of people each month?
nbcrusader said:
I realize you can spread your donations around. The issue is that there is a fairly large pool of potential recipients - are they all equal or are some issues more important than other?
nbcrusader said:
Do you see human life and animal life as equal in value?
dandy said:in the context of this discussion, my opinion on that doesn't matter any more than anybody else's. how and if people choose to support various causes isn't anybody's business but theirs. period.
DrTeeth said:Well, try answering your own questions. How do you justify it for yourself?
dandy said:in the context of this discussion, my opinion on that doesn't matter any more than anybody else's. how and if people choose to support various causes isn't anybody's business but theirs. period.
nbcrusader said:
A hierarchy of Human rights vs. animal rights isn't a matter of personal opinion.
dandy said:individual decisions to financially support animal rights groups aren't conscious, subversive strikes against human rights/other rights groups.
ILuvLarryMullen said:I don't get why people get so angry with KFC as opposed to say... the grocery store. KFC does not raise its own chickens. It buys then from various venders all over the place, the chicken comes from the same sources as the chicken you bought from the grocery store does. Is it horrible the way the chicken are treated? yes. But KFC is on worse than any other source of chicken (unless of course you are buying free range or something like that).
Eliv8 said:
The answer in in the original post. They were demonstrating to 'urge people to not eat at KFC until the restaurant buys chickens from humane vendors.'
To answer ILuvLarryMullen's question, pick on KFC to generate the most free advertising possible. I bet they saw an increase in donations following this advertising campaign.
Supporting PETA is counterproductive to supporting medical research.dandy said:
i think using 'more worthy' creates a false dichotomy. it is possible to support both human and animal causes. it's not an either/or situation.
nbcrusader said:
A hierarchy of Human rights vs. animal rights isn't a matter of personal opinion.
nbcrusader said:Even the theory of evolution creates a hierarchy. Guess who's on top.