Offensive PETA ad / Animal ethics?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why would I do that?

Why is it immoral to eat to survive? Animals eat other animals all the time in the wild, and humans are nothing more than very advanced animals. The only major difference is that we 'grow' other animals to eat, because the natural biosphere can't provide enough to sustain us.

So you're saying if every single meat producing factory in the US shut down and stopped manufacturing meat products, we'd all be peachy-king? There would be no food shortages? No massive changes in peoples diets?

No. Whenever I get out of my truck, I hit the door-lock button on the side, then close the door, then hit the 'lock' button on my keys at least twice. That is a habit. I think this is a little bit more than 'just a habit'.

There is if that's what people want. And if enough people want to eat it, you can bet there will be companies to supply it and profit from it. It's this concept called 'supply and demand'. Look into it.

What information do I require?

They are.

I guess I worded that poorly. Sorry. I meant finding a way to satisfy the diet of 307 million people without killing animals. Something like this, or whatever. A way to feed us without having to kill animals. I understand PETA is about the ethical treatment of animals, and not about converting us all into vegetarians (more or less) but those meat companies aren't going to take the time to pick daisies for the animals when they're just going to be killed in the end. They're interested in making money and saving money. They couldn't care less about the animals. Unfortunately. That's the sad reality.

Is there a problem with that? Can I be who I want to be without people like you passing judgement and considering yourself better because of your lifestyle? Maybe you're not that arrogant (seems like it though) but I've met plenty of vegans and vegetarians who act so smug and superior because they don't eat meat. they're assholes. I can get my haircut however I want, I can have faith in whatever I want, and I can eat whatever the fuck I want. I don't need to be told it's immoral or harmful. I'm not a drone with a blank mind to be shaped and molded to your will. If you think you've got it all figured out, and everyone should be like you, then fine, but leave me alone. With all sincerity, fuck off, good sir.

It's not. And I may be wrong, but the way I read that sentence was it sounds like you're implying it's some sort of addictive drug. It is not. I could not eat any meat tomorrow, but why would I do that? It's cheap and convenient, easy to eat and digest, it's got proteins and whatnot which I could surely use, and it tastes good. It's much too integrated into my life for me to simply walk past it in the grocery store every week.

you tell me. You sound like you think you've got me figured out.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Preach on, Reverend J!

Personally? No. Indeed, I find it strange that we're revisiting a seven year-old advertisement. To the other, though, the fact that we are suggests someone, somewhere—in this case, Mr. Sandrs—might feel insulted.

I apply Godwin's Law and its corrolaries here. PETA invoked the Nazis in a very stupid and hyperbolic manner; there's really not a whole lot to say.

Affecting future evolution of the species is one thing. Doing it for moral assertions is quite another.

For instance, the idea of genetic therapy for cancer doesn't bother me. But I do think that genetic manipulation to create a customized child would be rather quite silly. Much like the latter, the effects of moral vegetarianism as a worldwide outcome would reflect the arrogance, and not a perception of need.

I mean, by your standard, if modern medicine is on par with PETA, then I would be arguing that if we shouldn't become vegetarians for purely moral dictate, we shouldn't treat cancer.

I would hope—even expect—you could see the problem with such "logic".

Yes, your hair-splitting "morals" about nervous systems and comparisons of meat eaters to child killers. I do remember, sir.

You may have explained this all to me before, James, but it doesn't make your explanation correct, or even sane. This is one place where your esteemed belief in rationality falters, and grotesquely.

You might notice that I'm one of those who disagrees with PETA but doesn't feel the need to cuss them out. Perhaps I am a statistical deviation in that regard. But as other people's reactions show, PETA can expect the same thing anyone else should when they set out to insult the fuck out of people: they won't listen.

It's up to them. If they want to believe in the spirituality of cows, pigs, deer, rabbits, fish, and other animals, that's fine with me. If they want to assert that these organisms are the political and judicial equal of human beings, that's fine with me. In the case of the latter, though, they're going to have to come up with something better than cheap hyperbole.

It's not that I can't be sold on the idea, but that the sale requires more work than these advocates are willing to put in.

I think it's much like Christianity, James. When one watches a televangelist weep for money and God's will, or Christine O'Donnell expound on the evils of masturbation while relegating women to the status of sex toys, or listening to the moralists forsake sexual consent in order to tell us why gay sex is the equivalent of raping children, animals, or dead things, one wonders about the stupidity of it all. And when one considers whether or not to join them in the cause, well, they're going to pause to wonder if that's how they want to be seen. One of the effects of such religious clowning is that smart people see no reason to join them, and every reason to avoid them.

It's a one-way ride to the end of the universe
Please leave your mind at the back of the plane ....

(Screaming Trees, "End of the Universe")​

Really, when the message is, "Be as moral and stupid and pathetic as us", why would anyone want to join?

That doesn't surprise me. You're a religious extremist when it comes to animal rights, James. You believe unproven articles of faith, expect everyone else to conform, and denounce those who don't.

Start yourself a ministry, Reverend J. The Holy Temple of Equal Consideration.

Hell, you could probably make a buttload of money.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not really - there's a reason that Godwin's Law exists, and it's that comparing somebody to the Nazis/Holocaust is a guaranteed way to create outrage out of any proportion to the actual topic.

If the ad had said something less overtly prejudicial, like "Animals are people, too" and people were getting offended by that, then, yeah, that would be interesting.

Meanwhile, every dollar PETA spends pissing people off to no noticeable effect is another animal in their care that they cannot afford and must euthanize. If there were some demonstrable positive effect on animal rights from their ads, that might be justifiable. But as it is, PETA is literally choosing to kill living animals in order to fund choir-preaching. I'd suggest that they spend their budget addressing the systemic reasons they have so many unwanted pets to deal with (which has nothing to do with food) before killing animals in favor of frivolous crap like the ad in question.

At the end of the day, the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Westerners (and most other peoples) have no qualms about killing animals per se. Animal welfare - as opposed to animal rights - is where the traction is. No suffering = no problem, for the overwhelming majority of people. Yes, that is overtly speciesist and, no, nobody is particularly bothered by that. Why would they be? It's a perfectly natural value to hold, and a near-universal one in the animal kingdom (and the others, for that matter).

And frankly I have no patience for this sort of rhetoric coming from anyone who follows any diet less strict than a devout Jain. If speciesism is wrong, then it is wrong to view plants as instruments and kill them for food. If eating plants is okay because they do not suffer, then the basis for that diet is not rights but welfare. And if the basis is welfare, then there is no grounds to complain about eating animals, provided they are treated sufficiently humanely. Anyone who claims to reject speciesism but kills plants for food is fooling themselves - all they've done is widen the circle of speciesism to include a certain amount of animals (typically, only large non-pest animals and in plenty of cases, only cute mammals).

 

I think you missed the point of the billboard. It was not to compare the deaths of millions of humans to the deaths of millions of animals. It was to challenge people to consider why one act is considered morally wrong, while the other is not.
Did the Nazis not think they were acting in their best interests? Does the meat industry not think it is acting in its own best interests? History decides.

I don't need people to tell me what to consume either, I choose not to eat meat because I find the enormous scale of animal abuse and waste of natural resources that goes into meat production disturbing and morally wrong.

 

Bah. . . I'm a vegetarian. Ask my family. They all know. Annoys my mom to high holy hell. The only time I will eat meat is when I come over for dinner. And at extended family gatherings. Many of the vegetarians I know are the same way. I am surprised you have never heard of social vegetarians.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I do it for two reasons. First, to keep from starving. And second, due to the research of Dr. Dean Radin. It's my own personal beliefs. I believe the intention of the home cooked meal by loved ones partially undoes the suffering and damage done to the DNA and water molecules of the animal, which is the memory of the animal's consciousness and that transfers to you when you eat it; (who wants THAT vibrational pattern in them?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) No thanks. . . it leads to sickness, exhaustion, obesity, emotional irritability and unhappiness, mental instability, spiritual regression, etc. . . ick. You can't progress your consciousness at all with that. I have done much research, and come to the conclusion, the the galactic beings of light, the 95% of friendly beings in the universe? Most of them do not even need to "eat," however, those in the third dimension that do require sustenance, if you wish to ascend to higher planes, one does not do so off the flesh of other sentient. Only off of energy derived indirectly from the stars that is as close to still living as possible (raw food every day) can one do so. This is just my personal research and beliefs though. Your welcome to your eat your rot and decay every day if you wish though.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

PETA is sexist and racist. They are ignorant, make more enemies than friends, they are irrational, spiritually immature, and try to persuade with emotions only.

They are the cause of more animal suffering than they prevent, and are the enemy of the SPCA and the Humane Society and all animals everywhere. Inherently, they are hypocrites, and they fail to see it. For you carnivores that love to eat meat, rather than ridiculing PETA, you should be applaud their existance, they only help your cause. . . how could you not love ads like this. . .

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and this? Milk Gone Wild! warning, not appropriate for children under 15.
For people that love animals and are concerned about there rights, you should read a rational point of view about this disastrous organization. . .
http://jezebel.com/5453982/ingrid-newkirk-is-the-worst-person-in-the-world

 

I wonder. . . the people in this thread defending PETA. . . do you own pets?

 

They were raised on meat their entire life, it's a harder habit to kick than nicotine. Death is, in the final analysis. . . deeeelicious!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

They love you, see potential in you, and wish to train, teach and expand your body and soul. Take it as the ultimate intellectual and spiritual compliment! You hang with some pretty kick ass peeps. It's like hanging with either Consciousnesses from other worlds or the Dalhi Lami's folks. Ever watch the movie Seven Years in Tibet?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Join us brother! Eating that crap is the easiest way to make the transition. It's like a nicotine patch. Eventually you tire of it. Than you tire of cooked and steamed vegetables and prefer them raw as there is more life essence in them.

Concurred. If you are going to eat veggie, eat raw live food. Not chopped dead rotting garbage. The living essence is superior.

 

I guess I'm confused here. . . You really aren't that good of a communicator. Or perhaps it is I that have failed to adequately communicate my beliefs so you have drawn faulty conclusion and grouped me in with others and so drawn mistaken conclusions?

Anyway here's the long and the short of it. If you eat vegetable matter while it is still vital, still alive, it will not lower your vibrational energy patterns, your consciousness as it were. Like wise, water molecules can be imbued with crystalline structures that have memory, these can be imparted to DNA. While a living organism is still alive, this can be transferred to your body and raise your overall vibratory energy pattern.

All this goes beyond just simple nutrition. Of course, it makes the foods nutritious value more effective as well. Emotions, how water is treated, how vegetables are grown and how they are handled, cooked, packaged, etc. it all affects the value on down the line. Emotions and stress have a much much greater effect on animal products, and how water interacts with the DNA at the cellular level with animal products. And of course, except for fish, all animal food should be cooked, (unless eaten at the point of kill) so it necessarily is always going to be dead and/or packaged by the time you eat it. . .

But, I somehow fail to see what any of this has to do with perceived "insecurities" as you mentioned. Please, enlighten me with a further elaboration of your armchair psychoanalysis?​

 

PETA is evil; they are self-serving. But the vegetarian cause is right.

 

Thank you, I can't tell you I was more than a little dismayed to find that the inquisitive rational thread that I started, merged with this inflamitory anti-animal rights thread. The thread I started show cased a somewhat alarming video showing the stunning heroics of the consciousness of a highly evolved mammal (a cat) showing it's love for humans, by defending them against all odds, alligators, which clearly it had no chance of winning against.

If Tiassa had watched this video, then he probably wouldn't stated the ponderously absurd, "show me the spiritual awareness of a bull" Clearly mammals show affection and do have consciousness. Ask a farmer. Unfortunately for this farming couple, in their ignorance, they believed by cloning the physical animal, they could clone the spirit, the consciousness. Instead, for the love the farmer had for that bull that had past away, it landed the farmer in the hospital repeatedly. If you have Netflix, I highly recommend watching this episode.
The consciousness of a bull. . .

 

Actually, the reaction is "killing animals is moral, whereas killing humans is not." I do not justify breeding and slaughtering animals for food because it is somehow outside of morality. I consider it explicitly moral - it is an honor to be a part of the food chain, an honor for us to eat animals, and an honor for them to be eaten by us. The immorality is in mistreating animals, or taking their sacrifice for granted.

No, both are worthy, but of different things. Animals are worthy of playing an invaluable role as food - they deserve respect, good treatment, and gratitude for the sustenance they provide and its advancement of our species. Destroying millions of humans simply because you dislike them is a different beast entirely. One is the circle of life, the other is cruel nihilism.

Nor are the food animals in question starved and abused in the way that the Holocaust victim pictured was - there's an aspect of wanton cruelty and sadism, above and beyond the actual killing, that characterizes the Holocaust, and which is neither acceptable nor generally present in food animal production. Cows like the one pictured in the ad are fattened, at considerable expense, and shielded from strenuous labor and stress.

Straw man (like all of the material quoted above). The omnivores you're interacting with here don't appear to be displaying any such hostility.

Animal welfare, sure; animal rights, as such, no. Go ahead and point out some significant changes in animal rights from PETA campaigns, if you're serious about this - you say they're discernable, so cite them. Or, just continue taking cagey shots at me, if you're content to come off as insecure and combative.

The message in question is designed to alienate me at the outset - it literally accuses anyone who eats meat of complicity in 6 Holocausts per day, every day. That's preaching to the choir, and it's difficult to even imagine a more combative, alienating message to broadcast. In comparison, I have few qualms with, for example, their recent anti-fur campaigns, which are much more inclusive and effective. They do know how to do this stuff, but frequently fall into the trap of throwing red meat to true believers.

Nope. I thought I'd already made it clear that I reject moral equivalence between humans and animals. So why would applying my arguments to humans bother me? Treating humans as animals is wrong. Treating animals as animals is not. There is a salient difference between the two categories.

And then there's the fact that it's not possible to keep humans as slaves without causing them suffering.

But let's pursue this analogy a bit further - the proposed solution to this "slavery" is not the same one as the solution to actual human slavery. We aren't countenancing setting food animals free, but rather eliminating them entirely. Would you say that preventing black people from reproducing, and thereby making them more-or-less extinct, would have been preferable to continued slavery? Because that's what you propose we do with all those chickens, cows, pigs, etc. - instead of breeding, raising and slaughtering them, we'll just prevent them all from even existing in the first place. It is unclear how assigning an inherent value to animal lives would support that course of action - in fact such a principle seems to be basically a wash as it relates to diet.

Nope. What I said is that I won't listen to radical rhetoric coming from people who lack the courage of their (stilted) convictions. In the meantime, I'll continue to assess my own morality on my own terms, including an open mind for serious, well-meant input. You're welcome to provide such, if you're interested in doing so. Or you can continue acting like a condescending prick, and I'll continue to write you off. Your choice.

The only thing is gives me a convenient out of is taking blowhards seriously. And, yes, it is rather nice to absolve myself of any such "responsibility."

That would be a decent bit of snark if I'd suggested that animal rights is based on the principle that it's wrong to eat anything. Fortunately I never said anything that could be reasonably construed as such.

What I have suggested is that if equal consideration applies to all species, then why is it only wrong to instrumentalize and kill species with nervous systems similar to our own? Certainly, some eaters do not think that it is (Jains, fruititarians, etc.), and so I take their categorical moral claims seriously (although I disagree). When I hear them from somebody that happily kills plants, on the basis that plants do not suffer, it just looks like the usual animal welfare perspective masquerading as something more absolute for rhetorical points.

But, by all means, go ahead and prove me wrong. Maybe there is some way to reject speciesism and have equal consideration tell you that's it's okay to kill organisms that don't have a nervous system comparable to yours. But I'm not seeing it, and snarky mischaracterizations of my own statements aren't going to change my mind.

Obviously I do - you'd have noted the running distinction between animal welfare (i.e., suffering) and animal rights (i.e., life) in the post you are responding to, if you'd bothered to comprehend it. But, hey, why waste a pretense to be oblivious and insulting, right? That's way more fun than being a grown-up.

Yeah, no shit - such distinction is exactly what I was speaking to. Did you actually read the post that you're responding to, or just skim through it with an eye for sentences that you could pull out of context, misrepresent and attack?

Are you blind to the irony of behaving this way in response to complaints that animal rights advocates are ineffectual (and even, counterproductive) blowhards who ought to be ignored?

I'm speaking to the arguments that you yourself have made, claiming to justify a vegetarian diet on the basis of equal consideration and associated rejection of speciesism. It seems that you agree that these are insufficient to justify the killing of plants for food - and that the consideration of suffering (i.e., welfare) must be introduced to justify your diet. In which case, the stuff about equal consideration and rights is spurious - it's just a repackaging of animal welfare, exaggerated for rhetorical effect. And so their inclusion looks a lot like a dishonorable attempt to sex up your rhetoric - all the better to club people over the head with. Likewise the commonplace restriction of consideration to animals, in which context that stuff looks a lot stronger (since the troublesome question of why plant life is devalued is avoided at the outset).

Lastly, telling people that they ought to go learn stuff for themselves is, in this context, obtuse. You (and PETA) are advocates for a fringe position - you can either make your case, or resign yourself to irrelevancy. Complaining that everyone else doesn't do your advocacy for you is just asinine, and isn't going to change anyone's minds about the subject (although it may make them more inclined to ignore you).

 

Actually, I don't see how asking for better treatment of animals is equal with vegetarianism or whatever.
You can still eat meat, but maybe instead of picking industrial non organic meat you should pick the organic version and not eating meat as often would be nice too, hm? What those animals are being fed with will end up in YOUR body after all. They get fed with tons of antibiotics because otherwise none of them would survive even a month under such atrocious living standards, etc. BSE, and all that stuff..that's what you're supporting when you eat normal industrial meat.

 

In the end it is just one group of people trying to force,coerce and shame another group of people inot accepting their opinion as fact.

Nobody can prove eating meat is morally wrong or morally right. Why? Becuase for EACH being that is their decision.

I can note that a true vegan-human has to supplemtnet their diet with some animal byproducts or sicken and die. Then again any pure carnivore-human must supplemtn their diet with some fruit or vegetables to avoid sickening and dying. So even nature is not taking a side in this debate.