How To Deal With PETA

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
nbcrusader said:
Even the theory of evolution creates a hierarchy. Guess who's on top.

Really?

Ever been lost in a jungle or swimming off the coast of South Africa?

Feeling hunted is a humbling experience, you should try it.

I don't care what your biology professor told you, whatever "hierarchy" you learned in school is purely circumstantial.
 
Last edited:
Good point, but evolution has nothing to do with animal rights.

Rights are a human construct, ultimately, but one which we should bestow, to a certain degree, upon animals.

The debate is to what degree. I'm more generous in this regard than most others in this world, I suppose, and not because I'm morally superior or a "better" person.

It probably derives from personal experiences growing up with various beloved pets which sensitized me to animal (or pet) feelings and personalities. (Being stalked by sharks didn't dissuade me from these thoughts, either, and neither does name-calling from Rush Limbaugh's fans).
 
Last edited:
We've come this far and no one has mentioned the "save the chickens/USA for Africa" skit from SNL ??
 
nbcrusader said:
Even the theory of evolution creates a hierarchy. Guess who's on top.
Evolution is not a progressive system. Human beings cannot outcompete sulphur fixing bacteria in anoxic environments.
 
Last edited:
Hey, did any of you ever see that "save the chickens/USA for Africa" skit from SNL?

Damn funny, you should download it.
 
Just pointing out the concept of the ecological niche, when a species can occupy a specific habitat very well and outcompete other species for the resources without too much trouble there are no strong pressures that select for new forms - that is those bacteria at hydrothermal vents on the sea floor probably havent changed much in a billion years because they are so well suited to their niche. The bacteria can exploit the environment superbly.

Of course this is not always so, you have background extinction rates and environmental changes going on all the time, these changes can lead to pressures that ultimately select for adapted forms. The tree of life concept with a heirachy of kingdoms and phyla and placing certain groups as superior to others is a very anthropocentric and victorian construction of the natural world. To study it properly requires a measure of objectivity and that includes dumping asusmptions about inherent species superiority, or for that matter sub-species superiority.

Humanity has utilised animals as the basis of civilisation; domestication has yielded the best possible livestock for food, work and hunting (e.g. dogs). To turn around and demand that animals should be imbued with rights similar to that of human beings is detrimental ~ I happen to think that modern medicine (which is dependent on animal testing) is a very good thing - and I don't bloody care how many rats and monkeys died so that I or someone I love can get the best possible treatment for disease. I am very fond of meat, it is packed with what human bodies need (of course not to excess ~ we should uphold our omnivorous heritage if only for health reasons) - mass production of livestock as a means to ensure that the population isn't malnourished has been beneficial to mankind (although the extreme of this with the obesity epidemic and associated health complications should be considered, diseases of excess which are preventable if people took better care of themselves, are better than the other extreme).

I don't agree with mistreating animals, they should live lives with as little suffering as possible (dumping chickens in ice water before slicing their heads off with a buzzsaw is part of this) but killing an animal is killing an animal, hunting one down and killing it is just as if not more violent than quickly stunning and slicing apart it's central nervous system (and for that matter kinder than rabbit traps). I wont even go to deeply into the issue of what constitutes an appealing animal from an animal rights perspective, needless to say they are inherently furry or feathered - nobody seems to stamp pictures of fish or insects on their campaign posters.

When PETA talks about animal liberation they are also attacking your right to look after beloved family pets, they are attacking the research institutions and researchers that ensure that you have a high quality of life, they are attacking the durable boots that people wear and the jackets that keep the cold out so very well.

Ignoring them and not answering those charges allows them to set the frames of the debate, you cannot make them go away by ignoring them and allowing their crap to go unanswered.
 
Last edited:
Irvine511 said:




note the word "theory" ...
Yes, it is a scientific theory, that is a factual statement.

Rather than argue about the definition of theory we should introduce the principle of the hypothesis.
 
nbcrusader said:


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.

Dude, I really dont know if you like being a lawyer who avoids answering something directly (a more straightforward question there cannot be) or if you like playing a wally. Either way, WITHOUT mentioning PETA (as was plainly asked, for cripes sake) do you reckon animal protection and anti cruelty should be a high priority for human beings? I dont want to hear about it versus cancer or about PETA or about KFC. Do you think (please) that it is abhorrent and humans should have a concerted and vested interest in protecting and caring for ALL animals? Is it an important topic for you personally? Maybe refer back to Noah, if you dont understand the gist of this point.

:slant:
 
Animals should be treated well. I don't like my veal saltimbocca too chewy.
 
A_Wanderer said:
Yes, it is a scientific theory, that is a factual statement.

Rather than argue about the definition of theory we should introduce the principle of the hypothesis.



oh, i know, but most people in casual conversation would simply say "evolution" in the same way that they would say "plate tectonics."

i was merely pointing out the consistency of worldview, even though it's about a thread quite different from other threads that contain the word "evolution."
 
Angela Harlem said:


Dude, I really dont know if you like being a lawyer who avoids answering something directly (a more straightforward question there cannot be) or if you like playing a wally. Either way, WITHOUT mentioning PETA (as was plainly asked, for cripes sake) do you reckon animal protection and anti cruelty should be a high priority for human beings? I dont want to hear about it versus cancer or about PETA or about KFC. Do you think (please) that it is abhorrent and humans should have a concerted and vested interest in protecting and caring for ALL animals? Is it an important topic for you personally? Maybe refer back to Noah, if you dont understand the gist of this point.

:slant:

Dude, I answered you question in the first two lines.

I added the additional comment to maintain the context of the discussion.

Unless you on omnipresent, you can't address all issues at the same time.

And I really don't want to get into a meaningless "I care more than you" type discussion.
 
nbcrusader said:


Dude, I answered you question in the first two lines.

I added the additional comment to maintain the context of the discussion.

Unless you on omnipresent, you can't address all issues at the same time.

And I really don't want to get into a meaningless "I care more than you" type discussion.

I'm going to number these points so they dont get lost again:
1. No, you didn't actually answer it. You dodged it, and I suspect the reasons why are because like many of your viewpoints, you seem uncomfortable in being anything like forthright in presenting them. You could simply say "Look, I like animals and all, and obviously dont like to see them harmed but as for rights I dont believe in it as I dont think they are worthy of rights of people. They're lesser species."

2. Instead you brought up comparisons like HIV and cancer as if that somehow matters and, on your own doing, began the heirarchy of 'care' on issues.

3. I simply asked if you think animal protection and rights is important to you, and you failed to answer it; skirting around it as you do on many topics and seem only keen on playing semantics and word games in your ever-vague replies. So I am going to take your fumbling replies to mean you actually dont think animals are very important at all and going by previous comments you've made in the past that they dont have souls and so on, so therefore are not so worthy. You care, but rather indifferently. Those who abuse will get theirs, right?

Now if I am very wrong in summing you up, then so be it. You present no other way of interpreting these kinds of things. So perhaps you could look at how you engage in these discussions and think about answering direct questions, I dunno, directly?

You either think it's important and worth a lot of fuss, or not. You seem to not. Fair enough. I guess. As confusing as it is, given what you essentially are.
:shrug:
 
Irvine511 said:





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.

...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.

Very well put and thank you. I belive this philosphy also helps one to get to know oneself/self limits, etc. I did teach GED to single mothers, a worthy endeavor no doubt, but not with the same heart and determination I've done other things. You are so right.
 
I hold PETA in utter contempt because they (passively, actively, directly and indirectly) support psychosis in a good enough number of their followers to make them dangerous.

I won't even tell you the number of times per year that our research institute gets bomb threats from various activist groups. Then we have the usual PETA suspects who stand on the corner (we have 2 buildings connected by an overhead bridge) and intimidate and hurl insults at research staff who are carrying animals (mice/rats/guinea pigs/hamsters usually) in wrapped, concealed cages to the lab. This is why we have monthly notices of when they plan on "peacefully" assembling during which times, you guessed it, we can't take the animals to other buildings/facilities and therefore NO research gets done.

Isn't that fabulous?

I have to pass a minimum of 4 security checkpoints to get into the animal facility. And this is for our own protection because these groups deem it reasonable to target everyone involved.

And if I may, as a final point, the threats directed? We occupy about 1/3 of a hospital which is a PEDIATRIC facility (the #3 ranked one in the world). Apparently babies on ventilators are fair game to these folks.

I'm sick of the extremist animal rights groups in the same way I'm sick of Christian and Islamic fundamentalists. It's all the same to me. And if we can take a stand and demand that moderate Christians speak out against Falwell, etc then why can't we take the same stand regarding PETA et al?
 
Well put, insofar as making moderates take a stand against groups like PETA the ammount of contempt that they show towards humane treatment of animals (not animal rights) groups (such as the RSPCA) illustrates the detatchment - probably just better for every sane person to take a stand against PETA and what they represent.

I would be interested to know, or for anybody reading this to know, just how much oversight has to take place with animal trials.
 
A_Wanderer said:


I would be interested to know, or for anybody reading this to know, just how much oversight has to take place with animal trials.

A TON.

I had to go for a day long workshop. I had to complete a course re: federal and provincial regulations and then write an exam at the end of it. Then I got my hands on animal training, and this is even though I already had handled animals as a student. Every new person who comes to our facility as a researcher or grad student MUST go through this.

The people handling the animals get paid at a starting rate that is about $20 - ie. 3x minimum wage. These are not uneducated grunts, they have good jobs with good benefits and incentive to do things properly. They work 24/7 and are always on call if there is a problem.

The facility is clean, sterile and nicer than most people's houses.

Every experiment you do has a protocol that must be approved and then you are restricted in terms of how many annuals yearly you can expose to a particular protocol.

The mice I work with have more protection than I do in my job.

But PETA doesn't give a shit about that, and most people have NO idea about how extensive animal research regulations are.
 
“I detest that organization,” Steig said, adding PETA tries to harm the economy because of personal agendas.
What? I don't think KFC is that much of a economic keystone. I do believe that, if KFC were to suddenly go bankrupt... nothing would change, we'd all just start going to boston market more often.
 
LittlejDesign said:

What? I don't think KFC is that much of a economic keystone. I do believe that, if KFC were to suddenly go bankrupt... nothing would change, we'd all just start going to boston market more often.

Well, you would have a large group of people looking for jobs. But that is not a change with which PETA is concerned.
 
I'm against cruelty to animals. Horrible things are being done to animals all over. I disagree with PETA about medical experimentation on animals. We could never get a single drug OK'd by the FDA without animal experimentation, and I sometimes wonder how a PETA member would feel about their kid being used in an experiment to spare an animal going through it. These people are just too naive for me.
 
nbcrusader said:
So you can be against animal cruelty and against PETA.

:hmm:

I wonder why people even set up that false dichotomy to begin with.
 
I would say that I am opposed to cruelty to animals, and support the use of animals for medical research. I consider myself basically supporting PETA's goal of prevention of cruelty to animals, but totally disagree with them on animal experimentation. Incidentally before my father retired as a cardiologist, he mainly did research on cat heart muscle.
 
Vegetarians Make Better Lovers, Says Sexy Couple Washington — Wearing nothing but red-white-and-blue boxers and Navy sailor caps, in a pre-Gay Pride display of passion that’s bound to raise a few eyebrows and turn lots of heads, PETA member Mike Brazell—a medal-winning 10-year Navy veteran—and his partner, Christopher McDonough, will passionately make out in a bed set up on Freedom Plaza on Wednesday. While the not-so-discreet couple is “getting it on” underneath a banner that reads, “Vegetarians Make Better Lovers,” activists will hand out leaflets and vegetarian starter kits to gaping-jawed passersby. Mike and Christopher want everyone to know that they can do themselves and animals a big favor by going vegetarian. It’s all part of PETA’s “Gay Make-Out Tour”:

Date: Wednesday, May 31

Time: 12 noon-1 p.m.

Place: Freedom Plaza, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.

What’s so sexy about going vegetarian? Besides the fact that animal suffering, heart disease, strokes, diabetes, obesity, and several types of cancer—which have all been conclusively linked to the consumption of meat and other animal products—aren’t exactly turn-ons, eating meat can also cause impotence. Cholesterol and animal fat slow the flow of blood to all the body’s vital organs, not just to the heart.
 
Back
Top Bottom