How To Deal With PETA

[DrTeeth]

So you dragged up a picture of Hitler to counter a point nobody made?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Evidently, but it was made as a statement of sarcasm provided that showed up correctly.

 

[Tania]

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.

Maybe then we should consider that the way we treat animals is a reflection of ourselves as a civilisation.

 

[nbcrusader]

I cant answer for you! Is it or not? Yes or no.

Is animal cruelty bad? Yes.

Is it a priority over human suffering? No.

If you have $200 to donate to a charity, is PETA more worthy than a cancer, AIDS, hunger, poverty, etc. charity?

PETA would like you to think so. And their paid fundraisers.

 

[dandy]

If you have $200 to donate to a charity, is PETA more worthy than a cancer, AIDS, hunger, poverty, etc. charity?

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]

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.

No, it is not false. Unless you have unlimited funds, you will need to make a choice.

 

[DrTeeth]

No, it is not false. Unless you have unlimited funds, you will need to make a choice.

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?

 

[dandy]

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.

 

[nbcrusader]

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?

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?

 

[Irvine511]

No, it is not false. Unless you have unlimited funds, you will need to make a choice.

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.

 

[nbcrusader]

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.

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?

Do you see human life and animal life as equal in value?

 

[nbcrusader]

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.

I'd say it is a combination of medial exposure and fundraising efforts. Many 501(c)(3) organizations will publish their tax filings, including the money spent on fundraising and administration. I think it is wise to evaluate that as part of the equation to detemine the effectiveness of the donation.

 

[Liesje]

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?

Good point.

As a college student, I can't donate any worthwhile about of money to ANY cause. However, I try to help by my actions, instead of giving money from time to time. For example, when it comes to animal rights, I've rescued, bottle fed, and adopted out a kitten, I've taken some neglected and abandoned dogs off the street to the animal shelter, and I've adopted some cats. For environmental issues, I recycle every little thing, even tags off clothes or receipts, and I walk instead of drive. For local non-profits, I offer to create a website or help with technology support for little or no cost.

There are always ways to help out besides donating money. Honestly, I think the experiences are more meaningful and more gratifying when you're acting on your values. You get to meet people and work with people you wouldn't otherwise meet if you just gave money.

Regarding PETA, I don't actively or financially support their organization because they've said things that simply aren't true and used these lies as shock value to get more people involved. I'm not saying they're BAD, just that they're not the only animal rights organization out there and I've found others that are more in line with what I've experienced to be true.

 

[DrTeeth]

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?

Well, try answering your own questions. How do you justify it for yourself?

 

[dandy]

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?

i believe i just asked the same question--international aid vs. rape crisis centres, etc. different people will be drawn to support different causes for any variety of reasons. yes, some causes are going to be more important to some people, and that's where they'll choose to lend their support. it's an individual decision.

Do you see human life and animal life as equal in value?

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]

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.

A hierarchy of Human rights vs. animal rights isn't a matter of personal opinion.

 

[nbcrusader]

Well, try answering your own questions. How do you justify it for yourself?

I do answer these questions myself.

Do you want us all to open up our financial records so we can compare how we do?

 

[Irvine511]

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.

i think this gets at a way to determine which causes are most "worthy" -- those which speak most passionately to the individual making the donation.

perhaps one has been a rape victim, perhaps one is HIV positive, perhaps one is convinced that the best thing for the planet would be a worldwide movement towards vegetarianism, perhaps one has spent time on the ground in Darfur, perhaps one has spent time teaching GED classes to single mothers.

the point is, there's more than enough need to go around, and there are many potential doners. i think if we must construct a rubrick as to which causes are "most worthy," then i think we must let individuals decide for themselves, so that their donations are given in full and generous spirit, that there's a level of genuine commitment attached to whatever dollar amount one gives.

when i was 9 years old, i did a "Swim for Lukemia" marathon thing. i went around the neighborhood and told people that i was going to swim 40 laps in an hour, and that if they paid me per lap, all that money would be given to lukemia research. three years earlier, i had lost my grandfather to lukemia. there was a personal motivation to wanting to do the swim. instead of 40 laps, i swam 76. my parents had to attach a note to the form when i went around collecting that said, "feel free to only pay the equivalent of 40 laps."

you know what -- no one did. everyone paid up the full 76 laps.

more people die of breast cancer than lukemia (i believe ... i'll wait for anitram to correct me), but i can't imagine that i'd have had the will to swim 76 laps instead of 40 laps if i'd been swimming for breast cancer instead of lukemia.

this is not to say one is more deserving than the other. just that one was more relevant to me than the other, and therefore, more worthy of *my* time, energy, and money.

 

[dandy]

A hierarchy of Human rights vs. animal rights isn't a matter of personal opinion.

individual decisions to financially support animal rights groups aren't conscious, subversive strikes against human rights/other rights groups.

 

[nbcrusader]

individual decisions to financially support animal rights groups aren't conscious, subversive strikes against human rights/other rights groups.

Though PETA's stances may be at odds with your statement. For them, animal rights trumps humans (as pointed out earlier with medical experiments).

 

[dandy]

so, in your opinion, no one should ever support PETA?

 

[nbcrusader]

There are far more reasonable and effective organizations (humane society for example).

 

[ILuvLarryMullen]

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]

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).

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.'

A_Wanderer - I know it was not your intent but thank you for the post. Any chance to alert people of the cruelty that goes on to put food on peoples plates is appreciated.

 

[nbcrusader]

Is there an establish convention for "humane vendors of chicken"?

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.

 

[ILuvLarryMullen]

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.'

yes I understand that part, but why KFC instead of say demonstrating at the grocery store? I think a better method would be something like trying to work on the laws about how poultry has to be kept by the vendors. I don't think that demonstrating against KFC is going to do a damn thing.



quote from nbcrusader (sorry, i don't know how to do the split quotes thing)

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.

good point, I guess that is probably why. Sure it's free advertising, but I think they are probably getting more people against them than for them.

 

[A_Wanderer]

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.

Supporting PETA is counterproductive to supporting medical research.

 

[Shag On A Rock]

A hierarchy of Human rights vs. animal rights isn't a matter of personal opinion.

I disagree. According to evolution, humans are animals and thus there is no heirachy. Some religions encourage the view that humans are superior to the other animals. The existance or absence of a heirachy of rights is entirely personal opinion.

 

[nbcrusader]

Even the theory of evolution creates a hierarchy. Guess who's on top.

 

[Shag On A Rock]

Even the theory of evolution creates a hierarchy. Guess who's on top.

Please provide references that support the theory that humans are not animals, and as such are not any more important than the rest of the animals. ie please provide references to a heirachy of rights.