I hate Peta, the way they treat animals and people is wrong.

[Paper Carnival]

Some people have such a boring life that they want to start a rebellion just for the sake of it. I doubt if half the PETA members actually care about animals. They just need something to fight for, so their life can have a meaning.

[bspeers]

See, I have to stay out of this debate as I've taken multiple philosophy of the environment and sociology of the environment courses that defend animal rights logically and all these attacks on PETA are logically ridiculous, but so defensive and angry it would only create a rift.   I mean, I'd get angry, they'd get angry and nothing would get solved.

All I ask is for God's sake please read some Peter Singer with an open mind.  He argues that there is no logical defense for eating meat or testing animals and does so very well--in fact, the only arguments against him that I have read grossly misrepresent his argument.  Or if you're more into comedy, watch some David Cross, who more or less makes the same argument, only in reverse, for satirical reasons.

Myself, I have nothing against the ethical culling of animals any more than I have against the ethical culling of people.  People are animals after all, and in higher population than most animals.  Or, if you're into the "they're less intelligent therefore we can eat them" camp, say "retarded children" instead.  Or Terry Shaivo.  Or soldiers, since they've actually agreed to go into some situation where they could be killed.

Arg, I'm using argument shorthand now, which always leads to misinterpretation.  I'll just say this:

I believe in women's rights and the equivalent treatment of women, and yet I objectify the female body.  The way I do so I believe is ethically indefensible, so I feel bad for it and work to overcome such exploitation, at least in situations where it makes people uncomfortable or conform to an unfair expectation.

I believe in animal rights and that eating them/experimenting on them is *at this point in history* ethically indefensible considering the various non-animal alternatives in every field.  I am not 100% vegetarian, however and eat some meat.  I don't try to defend it ethically, I just find it difficult to do given the cost of some non-meat substitutes and my skill with vegetables.

Sometimes we do things that are ethically indefensable.  Don't try to pretend you can get by with bombast and ad hominum attacks (look it up, though be sure to spell it correctly, because I probably didn't).  Ethics is a process of self development, and in our society you can't be perfect--but you can at least work towards more consistency.

BLAH BLAH BLAH, I shouldn't even be in this one, voop.

[Helm]

Ad hominem. Yes you shouldn't even be in this one unless you're prepared to invest in it and not sweep everything you don't agree with off the table as being angry and illogical.

I agree ethical consistency is a good goal to strive for. But the foundations of the various ethical schools themselves, be them utilitarian or some more absolute systems, are not logical or consistent with anything else as they're axiomatic and based on someone's arbiterate idea about what is 'good to do'. So let's not get too carried away with 'nnngh! your arguments are illogical!'

[LimpingFish]

Should animals that eat OTHER animals be taught to eat a meat substitute?

If all animals, as you say, are entitled to the same rights as humans, shouldn't they also have the same rights as the animals that might eat them?

Shouldn't voles be equipped with a synthetic spiked armor to defend themselves against the hungry jackal?

If we are all animals too, then why is my right to eat other animals frowned upon?

If we, as animals, are all the same, why do we have to conform to a non-animalistic way of sustaining ourselves?

Because we are more ethically advanced than the rest of the animal kingdom? Oh, but I thought we were all the same, and that a stoat or a finch has the same right to life that I do. So why is the lion allowed to hunt, dismember, and feast upon a lame gazelle, in a hardly humane manner, but I mustn't eat a KFC family bucket of chicken?

The lion is an animal. I am an animal. Why differentiate? Are we not the same?

btw, the first person to raise the point of cannabalism will be eaten.

[ManicMatt]

I don't like the idea of a lion eating an animal. But I'm not in the power to stop the lion, or even you from doing so.

My ideals in my life are to do the least damage to the world as possible while I am in it, and thus die with a clear conscience.

Haven't KFC been known to drown chickens to kill them? I read that recently somewhere.

[Ali]

I agree ethical consistency is a good goal to strive for. But the foundations of the various ethical schools themselves, be them utilitarian or some more absolute systems, are not logical or consistent with anything else as they're axiomatic and based on someone's arbiterate idea about what is 'good to do'.

Choosing a particular idea about what is "good to do" is not inherently illogical. What little I know of Peter Singer's utilitarianism suggests to me that it is logical and consistent. Like other ethical systems, it just isn't necessarily right about what is "good and bad".

[Helm]

Choosing a particular idea about what is "good to do" is not inherently illogical. What little I know of Peter Singer's utilitarianism suggests to me that it is logical and consistent. Like other ethical systems, it just isn't necessarily right about what is "good and bad".

Choosing a particular idea about what is "good to do" is as logical as choosing the next idea. All equally invented, fabricated. Inventing Right and Wrong by JL Mackie might be a good read on this one. This is what I said. Was I not clear? I have not read any of Peter Singer's stuff, but I am prepared to accept that his ethical conclusions all follow his premises, and that he makes no major logical blunders or contradictions. This wasn't what I was talking about.


EDIT: which is, I guess it's good to spell this out in this thread: it's easier to prove almost everybody in this thread, including bspeers to be logically inconsistent with his own statements than it is to prove anyone WRONG (read: bad) on moral grounds. What people are then likely to do is just that, punch holes in each other's credibility, because none here are master arguers that pay particular attention to their logical errors. Lots od personal discrediting, lots of Ad Hominems. It's fun discussion, but nobody should take the moral highground.

[Ali]

You're right that there arre contradictions in most of the arguments here.

The three main strands of agrument have been:

I'm an animal. Animals eat meat, so I should eat meat.

I'm better than an animal, so I should look after animals.

I'm better than an animal, so I can eat animals.

The first is logical, as long as you endorse canniballism. The latter two are only as reasonable as each other. What I would suggest is that instead of drawing an idea of "good" from nature or any other source, it would be better to intentionally manufacture one that suits us best.

For instance, I suspect that most of us would endorse a system of farming whereby farmers could earn a decent income, animals were well treated and the meat produced was free from antibiotics and other hilarious additives.

btw, the first person to raise the point of cannabalism will be eaten.

I already did, a page or so back, and again in this post. Do you think I'd go better with ketchup or mustard?

[LimpingFish]

I like my human flesh with a nice chunky salsa dip.

[MrColossal]

Do lions eat lions?

[Helm]

Sometimes. Seriously, the cannibalism line of thinking is faulty either way.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

I love animals.

Roasted or grilled, braised or sauteed!

[ManicMatt]

Just don't eat Limping Fish!

[SmootH]

I love these "hot button" ethical questions. Mostly because the sides are so polarized that the ensuing debate boils  to a "uh-hun"/"no-way" flame war.

I love the argument that cow farms are cruel because they cram them in so tight they can't properly grow and it becomes torture for them. Have you ever seen a corn field? Without proper maintenance with pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers no crop can grow that densely.

I love the argument that acres and acres of forests are cut down in order to build animal farms but no-one ever mentions the acres of forests that are cut down for wheat or coffee or whatever.

I love the argument that animal farms pollute the land and the running water but all the aformentionned chemicals used to grow crops are never considered as pollutants.

I love the cannibalism argument because it makes people seem so clever.

I love the argument about the stink of animal farms, but crop fields smell just as bad because guess what, those chemicals aren't exactly made from roses and gumdrops.

But I digress.

I'm not a vegetarian but I can understand their point of view.

I do agree on an economic/ environmental basis that cows, in particular, are detrimental. It takes far more land, food and money to grow a cow to eating size that an equal amount of, say, corn. furthermore, I don't buy leather goods because with the amount of cows we kill every day,  they should be pratically giving it away.  It's a travesty, anywhere from 300 to 1000 Canadian Dollars for a leather jacket?

Non-human animals are opportunistic eaters(a starving animal will eat anything food-like given the chance). You think an eagle on the hunt says "you know, i should really cut out the field mouse. I eat way too much field mouse, it's bad for my heart!". They eat whats available because they don't know when their next meal is going to be. if animals could buy food at a grocery store, they would and they'd all get really fat and lazy. All the better for me, because I like them big and juicy.

<edit> good catch on the spelling!

[Helm]

I love the canabalism argument because it makes people seem so clever.

Spell the word.

[SSH]

a) Animals that are tortured can taste better: e.g. foie gras, veal
b) Some animals are cannibals, but usually only when they HAVE to. If you've seen the movie Alive, I think you might accept that cannibalism is justifiable when there is no other choice, and murder is not involved.
c) I blame Disney, et. el for anthropomorphising everything that moves

And why stop at not killing animals? Who's to say that plants shouldn't be protected too. In fact, lets just all starve to death and save the world from all the pollution we generate.

[monkey0506]

Or, for a less biased view of things,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PETA


(anything that has to label itself "this is true", in my experience, is usually wild speculation)

The only problem here is that you have linked to Wikipedia. Everyone knows that Wikipedia is a joke site based upon half-truths and flat-out lies.

For the truth about PETA you should read the Uncyclopedia article. Uncyclopedia is an encyclopedia based on the search for truth. Just read this quote:

"I make all my decisions based on facts from Uncyclopedia!"

    ~ George W. Bush on Uncyclopedia

If George W. Bush puts his faith in Uncyclopedia, then so should the rest of the known universe.

http://www.uncyclopedia.org/wiki/PETA

For the real truth about "animal rights".

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a more serious note, I think that animal rights activists are just lunatics and attention whores. That is my honest opinion. Sorry if I offend anybody, but I eat meat, I don't see a problem with wearing fur, and I think it's rather ridiculous that every movie we make has to include a disclaimer that no animals were harmed in the making of the film.

What if I want to make a movie about the senseless slaughtering of hundreds of innocent animals so I can make myself a nice fur coat? Screw animal rights. People rights come first!

And if you don't agree with me, that's cool. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Just don't expect me to convert to vegetable-ism.

[EDIT:]

Having read SSH's comments here, I just have to reflect on what I said and think how much I wish I could have said the exact same thing as SSH only before he said it.

Seriously...I think I may give up breathing because any time I breathe in I take in a lot of gases out of the air which could be used to help someone or something else breathe at that or a later time. Eating is definitely out of the question because I wouldn't want to offend any living thing by taking its life so I could survive. And in fact I don't think I can even stand to drink water any more. Just thinking of all the tiny microorganisms inside that glass of water...it's enough to bring tears to my eyes.

[Nikolas]

Oh... I love this last post.

I'm eagerly waiting for the response

[ManicMatt]

Nah, his post is not worth replying to. 

[Nacho]

I can add that posts like that make me get closer to the arguments of animal rights activists...