ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 27th November 2012, 03:13 AM   #161
Dessi
Species Traitor
 
Dessi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 2,764
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Dessi and John.. do you think it's wrong for humans to have non-human pets?
No, its not wrong at all. But please adopt from shelters instead of breeding mills
__________________
>^.^<
Dessi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 04:05 AM   #162
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NeverLand
Posts: 12,646
Originally Posted by Dessi View Post
See here:


No-kill is not always humane. I definitely understand why no-kill shelters are preferable, but if you follow animal rights news, you see stories like this, this, this, this, and this every few months.

People's hearts are in the right place, but no-kill shelters routinely have to turn away animals (usually to be placed in euthanizing shelters). Otherwise, if they become overcrowded, animals are neglected, are understimulated, become sick, die.
I have to disagree here. The examples you cite don't seem to have to do with anything inherent to no-kill shelters, just horrible owners.

I volunteer at a no-kill shelter and we regularly take in animals from kill shelters. We have volunteers galore so that there is almost always someone "socialising" (playing ) with the cats, and the dogs go on walks every few hours. My biggest problem is that we had a mother with a litter of dogs and now we have a bunch of hyper puppies .
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 04:15 AM   #163
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NeverLand
Posts: 12,646
Originally Posted by DragonLady
Putting an end to animals as pets used to be one of the cornerstones of PETA's philosophy. I *suspect* they only changed their stance because most of the people who donate money to animal protection groups own pets, and are not going to give them up. Even now, they want us to adopt pets which have been spayed and neutered to "stop manufacturing" more. However, as far as I know, the Humane Society is pushing the same idea. If everyone spays or neuters every pet...there won't be any more pets.
Wait, what? Animal groups encourage spaying and neutering every pet they can because there is still overpopulation. Because of those efforts there are less animals euthanised than before, but there is still a ways to go.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 04:17 AM   #164
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NeverLand
Posts: 12,646
Oh, and for comparison, I usually read numbers in the 50%-70% range for euthanasia rates in shelters overall. If PETA takes in a biased sample of sick, elderly, or what have you animals, it doesn't seem that extreme.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 04:21 AM   #165
jj
grumpy old skeptic
 
jj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 21,383
Originally Posted by Dessi View Post
No, its not wrong at all. But please adopt from shelters instead of breeding mills
It's interesting, but one can't always take that advice. One of the local shelters here refused to adopt out a dog to my daughter, who knows a great deal about dogs, has lived with them, and has a good place for a non-active dog. They said "you had a lab mix, so the only thing we will let you adopt is another senior lab mix".

So adopting from shelters is not so easy, there are some pretty strange shelter policies out there, too.

And as far as puppy mills, amen to that. Gah!
__________________
The Power to Quit
jj is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 05:10 AM   #166
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,302
That's all well and good, but what about all of the stuff I believe about PETA because I uncritically read it after googling "PETA sucks"?
mumblethrax is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 05:45 AM   #167
Mister Earl
Illuminator
 
Mister Earl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,441
Peta is a terrorist organization. I donate my money to local shelters instead. I don't trust Peta further than I can throw them. Last year they took in almost 2,000 animals... and then killed 1,900 of them. In my opinion, this tells me they're more concerned with cold hard cash than they are the welfare of animals... dead critters are less upkeep.
Mister Earl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 09:14 AM   #168
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 18,593
It's not the euthanaesia PETA does that bothers me; it's the special pleading that accompanies it: there's overpopulation and it's fine for them to euthanize hundreds of animals they are given to help relieve that; however, a scientist euthanizing two dozen animals of the exact same species with the intent of later dissecting them for study or research is something that can not be abided, ever.

The rest of their antics are simply too ridiculous to take seriously, from their thoughtless and ineffective advertising campaigns to insisting on not calling animals "pets" despite the fact that millions of self-styled "pet owners" have established exactly the kinds of relationships and attitudes toward their pets that we're supposedly only able to achieve by using "companion animals".

It's fine that PETA occasionally does something adult and beneficial; but the USDA, ASPCA and local humane societies manage to do the same things kinds of things without the puerile and often intelligence-insulting circus act that comprises how PETA spends the rest of its time.
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 09:40 AM   #169
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 34,741
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
Oh yes you are right I had it wrong.

So god prefer meat eater.

"The Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, 5but He did not have regard for Cain and his offering. Cain was furious, and he was downcast"

I guess that settled then .
Yet Abel wound up with his head mashed in. More proof that it doesn't pay to be gods' friend.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 10:02 AM   #170
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 34,741
Originally Posted by John Mekki View Post
No comment.
This is pure trolling
Glad you openly admit it.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 10:23 AM   #171
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 8,813
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
That's all well and good, but what about all of the stuff I believe about PETA because I uncritically read it after googling "PETA sucks"?
Ha, you're not a real skeptic. I KNOW they suck because I saw their refrigerator of death on Penn & Teller. PeTA Killz!
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 10:24 AM   #172
Segnosaur
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,872
Originally Posted by John Mekki View Post
Which kind of food makes you fatter:
1) an hamburger with meat
2) a dish of lettuce without oil (well, little bit of oil)
Which kind of food would make you fatter:
- A hamburger (~279 Calories for 110g sandwich)
- A bowl of sugar (~419 calories for the same weight)

Remember, that "bowl of sugar" would probably be something considered 'vegan'... no animal products.

You see, the problem is, you're picking the lowest calorie option for your "vegan" mean and assuming everyone will automatically gravitate to that option. Not everyone will. In fact, i assume that most people will still consume more calories than they need, even if they decide to become vegan/vegatarian, because, well, people like tasty food even if its not always healthy.

Yes it is possible to eat a healthy diet if you're a vegan/vegitarian (although it may require certain nutritional supliments). But that means you really have to pay attention to what you eat. But then, its also the same with meat eaters... you can eat a completely healthy diet that includes meat (as well as plant material). The fact that some don't eat that 'balanced' diet is not the fault of the meat but the sum total of everything that's been consumed.
__________________

Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer
I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff)
I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant)
Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant)
Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 10:48 AM   #173
Dessi
Species Traitor
 
Dessi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 2,764
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Which kind of food would make you fatter:
- A hamburger (~279 Calories for 110g sandwich)
- A bowl of sugar (~419 calories for the same weight)

Remember, that "bowl of sugar" would probably be something considered 'vegan'... no animal products.

You see, the problem is, you're picking the lowest calorie option for your "vegan" mean and assuming everyone will automatically gravitate to that option. Not everyone will. In fact, i assume that most people will still consume more calories than they need, even if they decide to become vegan/vegatarian, because, well, people like tasty food even if its not always healthy.

Yes it is possible to eat a healthy diet if you're a vegan/vegitarian (although it may require certain nutritional supliments). But that means you really have to pay attention to what you eat. But then, its also the same with meat eaters... you can eat a completely healthy diet that includes meat (as well as plant material). The fact that some don't eat that 'balanced' diet is not the fault of the meat but the sum total of everything that's been consumed.
You can be healthy or unhealthy on any diet. Overeating + inactivity + plain old genetics are bigger factors than whether includes animal products. Its definitely not hard to be a fat vegan.
__________________
>^.^<
Dessi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 11:24 AM   #174
Segnosaur
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,872
To Dessi/John (as well as any other PETA supporters out there):

Please consider this:

* The current method of producing the influenza vaccine requires the use of chicken eggs. (Even though they are working on alternatives, it will probably be years before they come up with technology that works.) PETA is against the use of all animal products, which would likely include the use of chicken eggs in vaccines. It is estimated that the flu vaccine saves the lives of thousands of children a year. How do you feel knowing that if the organization you are supporting is successful tomorrow, that thousands of children will die as a result? Do you feel that is an acceptable tradeoff in order to give "animal rights"?

- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...ives-year.html
- http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/flushot.htm

* PETA opposes the use of animals in research into diseases like AIDS and Cancer. (There is a famous quote from Ingrid Newkirk that "Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.".) However, groups like the American Medical Association have stated that animal testing is critical for medical research. Do you think that the American Medical association (as well as many other medical groups) is wrong? Or do you accept that some people will die but those deaths are acceptable in the name of "animal rights"?


* PETA has supposedly given over $100,000, either to ALF directly, or people affiliated with the organization (people who have engaged in break-ins, arson, throwing smoke bombs, and related activities.) Even if PETA claims that there is over-population, that amount of money could be used to feed/car for approximately 20-30 dogs or cats. Do you think that the organization giving money to people so that they can break into labs and burn down houses is a better use for your donations rather than giving the money to your local animal shelters so that they can actually feed and care for dogs/cats?

- http://www.activistcash.com/organiza...eye.cfm/oid/21 (Note: this is from a web site from the "center for consumer freedom". It is understandable to be suspicious of this, but the information is similar to that given by Penn and Teller on their PETA episode of B.S.(
__________________

Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer
I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff)
I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant)
Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant)
Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 11:30 AM   #175
Dessi
Species Traitor
 
Dessi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 2,764
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
It's not the euthanaesia PETA does that bothers me; it's the special pleading that accompanies it: there's overpopulation and it's fine for them to euthanize hundreds of animals they are given to help relieve that; however, a scientist euthanizing two dozen animals of the exact same species with the intent of later dissecting them for study or research is something that can not be abided, ever.
Last time I checked, lab animals were bred for experimentation, justified by an irrational speciesist prejudice; and euthanasia in shelters occurs not due to speciesism, but because animals breed like crazy (e.g. cats can have their first litter as early as 5 months old), we don't have enough homes to adopt them out or the infinite resources to care for each of them, especially the ones who are sick, dying, or dangerous to be placed in homes.

The only thing they have in common is animal euthanasia, they're dissimilar in every other way. What are you referring to when you accuse PETA of "special pleading"?

Quote:
The rest of their antics are simply too ridiculous to take seriously, from their thoughtless and ineffective advertising campaigns to insisting on not calling animals "pets" despite the fact that millions of self-styled "pet owners" have established exactly the kinds of relationships and attitudes toward their pets that we're supposedly only able to achieve by using "companion animals".
There are lots of disagreements amount animal rights activists. One of those is whether "pet"/"companion animal" is a distinction without a difference. Not all of us care one way or other what its called.
__________________
>^.^<
Dessi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 11:37 AM   #176
Segnosaur
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,872
Originally Posted by Dessi View Post
You can be healthy or unhealthy on any diet. Overeating + inactivity + plain old genetics are bigger factors than whether includes animal products. Its definitely not hard to be a fat vegan.
Don't tell me.. Tell John Mekki.

My posting was in response to his 'claims' that being a vegitarian/vegan is healthier than eating meat. Its not.
__________________

Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer
I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff)
I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant)
Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant)
Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 11:38 AM   #177
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 8,813
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
* PETA opposes the use of animals in research into diseases like AIDS and Cancer. (There is a famous quote from Ingrid Newkirk that "Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.".)
I realize it's OK to eat animals because "they're nothing like us" while it's OK to experiment on them because "we share a lot in common!" but isn't it just a basic medical fact that the quickest, surest way to find cures for diseases would mean testing on humans? So why don't we do that right away? This might sound like some Gene Hackman movie, but take so-called undesirables, poke and prod, and search for a cure.

Oh... that's right, some will say the cure is worse than the disease. "Ethics" and all that jazz. Earlier Dessi mentioned all the times people on this forum correctly lambast religious whackjobs for appeals to nature/discrimination on the basis of morally insignificant characteristics, but an animal rights thread strangely transforms otherwise critical folks into the dullest Republicans, the kind who trade witless remarks about how to cook turkeys or what PeTA "really" stands for.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 12:07 PM   #178
Segnosaur
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,872
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
I realize it's OK to eat animals because "they're nothing like us" while it's OK to experiment on them because "we share a lot in common!"...
I never made that claim.

Animals (and for that matter plants) have some differences from us, and some similarities. The 'difference' is mostly in the mental abilities (our ability to plan, develop culture, etc.). The similarity is mostly in the basic body plan/chemistry.

Quote:
...but isn't it just a basic medical fact that the quickest, surest way to find cures for diseases would mean testing on humans? So why don't we do that right away? This might sound like some Gene Hackman movie, but take so-called undesirables, poke and prod, and search for a cure.
Again, we don't test on humans because, even if a person is an 'undesirable' we do still view them differently than mice, rats and the like. They are capable of making decisions, and even if they're currently homeless alcoholic street bums, they at least have the potential to do great things.

I'd also dispute that even if we could test on humans whether it would lead to faster cures (at least in some cases). Testing on animals does have additional advantages: shorter times to maturity, faster breeding times, and the ability to control the test subject's background.
__________________

Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer
I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff)
I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant)
Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant)
Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 01:21 PM   #179
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 18,593
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
* PETA opposes the use of animals in research into diseases like AIDS and Cancer. (There is a famous quote from Ingrid Newkirk that "Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.".) However, groups like the American Medical Association have stated that animal testing is critical for medical research. Do you think that the American Medical association (as well as many other medical groups) is wrong? Or do you accept that some people will die but those deaths are acceptable in the name of "animal rights"?
This is another instance of special pleading on the part of PETA. They brashly declare they would be against a cure for AIDS if animal testing helped develop it, yet they're not against insulin supplements even though animal testing helped develop that, because one of their key figures needs those exact insulin supplements to stay alive and "continue fighting for animal rights". There's no doubt in my mind that, declarations of non-support notwithstanding, if one of their key figures contracted AIDS and required a life-saving, animal-research-developed cure to stay alive, they would be allowed to do so and special rationalizations about how it's "necessary to help more animals" would be made.
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 01:39 PM   #180
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 18,593
Originally Posted by Dessi View Post
Last time I checked, lab animals were bred for experimentation, justified by an irrational speciesist prejudice; and euthanasia in shelters occurs not due to speciesism, but because animals breed like crazy (e.g. cats can have their first litter as early as 5 months old), we don't have enough homes to adopt them out or the infinite resources to care for each of them, especially the ones who are sick, dying, or dangerous to be placed in homes.

The only thing they have in common is animal euthanasia, they're dissimilar in every other way. What are you referring to when you accuse PETA of "special pleading"?

But how could it not be special pleading? The euthanesia is acceptable in one instance but condemned in another. It is acceptable for a PETA member to use animal-product-derived medicines, but not acceptable for non-PETA members to produce them so that others (including the PETA members) can use them.

The complaints against Iams is another case in point. We know what Iams does - they make speciality food for animals, including special blends that can be prescribed by veterinarians to companion animals whose medical conditions require a specific diet (i.e., can't have normal pet food). But would you see PETA giving them a bye on animal research because the results of the research could help an exponentially-greater number of companion animals live fuller, healthier lives? No; the right to take advantage of animal research is evidently reserved for PETA members in specific situations.

Originally Posted by Dessi View Post
There are lots of disagreements amount animal rights activists. One of those is whether "pet"/"companion animal" is a distinction without a difference. Not all of us care one way or other what its called.
And I'm sure "not all" PETA members agreed with the "holocaust on a plate" imagery, and I'm sure "not all" PETA members think the town of Fishkill should change its name just because it sounds mean; and for that matter, I don't think any PETA members have really vowed to call fish "sea kittens" from now on. However, these stances are nevertheless THE public face of the group, and these campaigns are what all donators' donations help support, whether they "agree with them" or not; I don't agree with any of them, and there are enough groups out there that do the things few things PETA does that I do happen to agree with without all the just plain silliness that I don't agree with, that I can donate to help animals without having to worry that I'm also supporting lunacy.
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 01:54 PM   #181
Dessi
Species Traitor
 
Dessi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 2,764
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
* The current method of producing the influenza vaccine requires the use of chicken eggs. (Even though they are working on alternatives, it will probably be years before they come up with technology that works.) PETA is against the use of all animal products, which would likely include the use of chicken eggs in vaccines. It is estimated that the flu vaccine saves the lives of thousands of children a year. How do you feel knowing that if the organization you are supporting is successful tomorrow, that thousands of children will die as a result? Do you feel that is an acceptable tradeoff in order to give "animal rights"?

- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...ives-year.html
- http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/flushot.htm
Thankfully albumen used in vaccines comes from chickens raised in Amish communities, rather than factory farms. That helps a little. Ideally, compassionate egg suppliers could raise happy, healthy chickens to their natural end, selling high-quality eggs for use in vaccinations and other areas.

Most vegans hold the view that we should avoid animal products wherever its reasonable to do so. Vegan diets are easy, available to lots of people living in first-world countries; vaccines and medicines derived from animals, where vegan alternatives literally don't exist, its definitely not as easy to criticize someone for that.

I think it helps to understand that we shouldn't let perfection being the enemy of the good. Vegan diet, avoiding leather, fur, and puppy farms reduces suffering, all of those things really help. We have every good reason to reduce the harm we cause where its easy for us to do so, even if we can't totally eliminate all animal suffering caused directly or indirectly by our existence or non-existence.

Quote:
* PETA opposes the use of animals in research into diseases like AIDS and Cancer. (There is a famous quote from Ingrid Newkirk that "Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.".) However, groups like the American Medical Association have stated that animal testing is critical for medical research. Do you think that the American Medical association (as well as many other medical groups) is wrong? Or do you accept that some people will die but those deaths are acceptable in the name of "animal rights"?
I think animal experimentation is acceptable in all the areas where it would be appropriate to substitute a mentally similar human in it's place.

Quote:
* PETA has supposedly given over $100,000, either to ALF directly, or people affiliated with the organization (people who have engaged in break-ins, arson, throwing smoke bombs, and related activities.) Even if PETA claims that there is over-population, that amount of money could be used to feed/car for approximately 20-30 dogs or cats. Do you think that the organization giving money to people so that they can break into labs and burn down houses is a better use for your donations rather than giving the money to your local animal shelters so that they can actually feed and care for dogs/cats?
<3 ALF, those guys are heroes. Releasing animals from mink farms has caused those places to close and never re-open, undercover videos have resulted in the direct shutdown of animal labs. I don't necessarily endorse the everything people do in the name of ALF, but I generally hold the opinion that direct action works (hence why I give generous donations to Sea Shepard Society every year).

Quote:
http://www.activistcash.com/organiza...eye.cfm/oid/21 (Note: this is from a web site from the "center for consumer freedom". It is understandable to be suspicious of this, but the information is similar to that given by Penn and Teller on their PETA episode of B.S.(
Is that the same Center for Consumer Freedom funded by Phillip Morris to challenge scientific research documenting harm caused by cigarettes and alcohol, receives funding from KFC and animal labs to lobby against animal welfare legislations, criticizes Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the Center for Disease Control for their opposition to underage drinking, accuses the Humane Society of being a front group for domestic terrorists, receives funding from prominent Republicans to publish op-eds characterizing unions and minimum wage laws as anti-capitalist conspiracies?

I understand PETA isn't the most neutral source either, but countering them with an ultra-right propaganda think tank which normally wouldn't receive two seconds serious consideration outside of the Conspiracy Theory subfora?

A lot of stuff in this thread comes from that group. The quote-mined excerpts "proving" PETA opposes animal companionship, the insane belief that PETA wants to release cows and chickens into the streets. There are lots of ways to criticize PETA, and the Center for Consumer Freedom probably touches on a few serious items, but if you aren't actually familiar with the group (trust me, if all you know is CCF and P&T:BS!, you're not), how do you separate serious items from the bull ****** You can't.
__________________
>^.^<

Last edited by Dessi; 27th November 2012 at 02:09 PM.
Dessi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 02:14 PM   #182
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 8,813
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Again, we don't test on humans because, even if a person is an 'undesirable' we do still view them differently than mice, rats and the like. They are capable of making decisions, and even if they're currently homeless alcoholic street bums, they at least have the potential to do great things.
Nominated. For the Hall of Fame of Bad Arguments. When did our standard for rights become the "potential to do great things"? And how do we define "great"? It turns out chimps must be "less capable of making decisions" than infants, much less strung-out junkies. And if we're going to create this new standard, then we should really follow through: people with Down's Syndrome can be infected with HIV.

Quote:
I'd also dispute that even if we could test on humans whether it would lead to faster cures (at least in some cases). Testing on animals does have additional advantages: shorter times to maturity, faster breeding times, and the ability to control the test subject's background.
Even though I think it's generally regarded as trivially obvious that experimenting directly on humans would yield far more insights than current animal research -- in part because it's relatively low-hanging, forbidden fruit -- let's put aside the question of which would lead to "faster cures" -- and reframe it as another tool in the toolbox. "Ethical concerns" impede progress on the headline grabbing diseases you mentioned.


ETA: I wasn't going to bother with this, but for the sake of completeness.

re: nothing and share a lot in common
Quote:
I never made that claim.
I didn't say you did... but just now you sort of did...

Quote:
Animals (and for that matter plants) have some differences from us, and some similarities. The 'difference' is mostly in the mental abilities (our ability to plan, develop culture, etc.). The similarity is mostly in the basic body plan/chemistry.
It's troubling how the organisms on earth fail to respect our hard line for differences between homo sapiens and other species. I know people who are NOTHING like me. They like the Beatles whereas I prefer the Stones. They have light hair whereas I have dark hair. They eat meat; I don't.

It's like Bentham said, "The question is not, 'Can they reason?' nor, 'Can they talk?' nor, 'Can they create an 18th level Paladin' but 'Can they suffer?'"

Last edited by Cain; 27th November 2012 at 02:18 PM. Reason: fine print goes here.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 03:30 PM   #183
Segnosaur
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,872
Originally Posted by Dessi View Post
Quote:
The current method of producing the influenza vaccine requires the use of chicken eggs. (Even though they are working on alternatives, it will probably be years before they come up with technology that works.) PETA is against the use of all animal products, which would likely include the use of chicken eggs in vaccines. It is estimated that the flu vaccine saves the lives of thousands of children a year. How do you feel knowing that if the organization you are supporting is successful tomorrow, that thousands of children will die as a result? Do you feel that is an acceptable tradeoff in order to give "animal rights"?
Thankfully albumen used in vaccines comes from chickens raised in Amish communities...
Ummm... proof? Never heard that claim before. Maybe its right, but it seems very suspicious.

In fact, here's a source that shows that shows that many (most) of the chickens live in government sponsered farms. Even though some of the farms may be in "Amish country", they are not (in any way) part of the "Amish" community, and the chickens are not "free range".

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126326011266225669.html

Quote:
Ideally, compassionate egg suppliers could raise happy, healthy chickens to their natural end, selling high-quality eggs for use in vaccinations and other areas.
Except of course the large number of eggs required, along with the need for quality control, would make it impossible for "compassionate egg suppliers".

Quote:
Most vegans hold the view that we should avoid animal products wherever its reasonable to do so.
Except of course we're not talking about "most vegans". We are talking specifically about PETA.

PETA is against all medical use of animals (whether its a "factory farm" or "free range"). That policy would mean zero eggs available for producing influenza vaccines. And thousands of preventable deaths in children (as indicated in my previous references.)

So, once again, I ask: how do you feel about supporting an organization who's goals, if implemented right now would cause thousands of deaths?

Quote:
I think it helps to understand that we shouldn't let perfection being the enemy of the good. Vegan diet, avoiding leather, fur, and puppy farms reduces suffering, all of those things really help.
If PETA's only goal was to "eliminate puppy mills", encourage humane treatment of animals in labs, etc. then I doubt anyone would object to them. But there are a few problems:
- There are other organizations who also have those goals. You could have also donated to one of those other organizations just as easily
- PETAs goals go far beyond just "puppy farms" and the like... as I pointed out, they have policies that will result in the death of thousands of humans. If you support the organization, you are supporting all of what they do.

Quote:
Quote:
* PETA opposes the use of animals in research into diseases like AIDS and Cancer. However, groups like the American Medical Association have stated that animal testing is critical for medical research. Do you think that the American Medical association is wrong? Or do you accept that some people will die but those deaths are acceptable in the name of "animal rights"?
I think animal experimentation is acceptable in all the areas where it would be appropriate to substitute a mentally similar human in it's place.
So... what you're saying is that you have no problem with people dying because of your belief in "animal rights". (Keep in mind that had we had that attitude over a century ago, Smallpox would still be with us today.)

I hope you can understand why many people will find that attitude exceptionally disgusting.

I also find it a bit... strange. You said you have no problem with using eggs to manufacture vaccines, yet you're against research using animals. Why the double standard? Nobody ever asked the chickens if they wanted to help make vaccines.

Quote:
Quote:
* PETA has supposedly given over $100,000, either to ALF directly, or people affiliated with the organization
<3 ALF, those guys are heroes.
And you've just crossed the line into uber-scary.

Quote:
Releasing animals from mink farms has caused those places to close and never re-open, undercover videos have resulted in the direct shutdown of animal labs.
And they have also:

- Planned bombings

From: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...an-held-638455THE "top bomber" for the extremist Animal Liberation Front yesterday admitted an arson campaign...




- Grave Robbery:

From: http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-previe...animals-625078
THREE animal rights activists were each jailed for 12 years last Thursday after a six-year reign of terror against Darley Oaks Farm in Newchurch, Staffordshire, which bred guinea pigs for research. Their campaign - which led to the farm's closure - culminated in them taking the body of an elderly woman from her grave

- Threatening Children

See: http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/b...-henson-127622

- Slashing tires:

See: http://www.animalliberationfront.com...eports2011.htm

Oh, and by the way, one of the ALF people who benefited from PETA's generosity was Roger Troen, who was involved in setting fires at the University of Oregon.
Quote:
I don't necessarily endorse the everything people do in the name of ALF
So, what proportion of their activities do you support? A few? Half? almost all? At what point will you start to consider the group (as a whole) to be "distasteful"?

Quote:
Quote:
http://www.activistcash.com/organiza...eye.cfm/oid/21 (Note: this is from a web site from the "center for consumer freedom". It is understandable to be suspicious of this, but the information is similar to that given by Penn and Teller on their PETA episode of B.S.
Is that the same Center for Consumer Freedom funded by Phillip Morris to challenge scientific research documenting harm caused by cigarettes and alcohol...
etc
I understand PETA isn't the most neutral source either, but countering them with an ultra-right propaganda think tank which normally wouldn't receive two seconds serious consideration outside of the Conspiracy Theory subfora?
I already admitted that its understandable to be skeptical of a source like "activistcash.com". That's why I pointed out that their information was supported by Penn & Teller. on their show, individuals who are fairly well respected in the skeptical community.

Secondly, I find your complaint rather... perplexing. I referenced activistcash only to talk about PETA contributions to ALF. You claimed that "ALF are heroes"... so why are you complaining about my source that PETA gave them money?

And do you deny that PETA has made those contributions to ALF? Its been pretty well known. Here is another source giving the same information:

From: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/warnin...o_your_health/ (I think the "Comittiee for Skeptical Inquiry" can be seen as pretty unbiased...)
Many of its donors are also unaware that PETA has provided cash to individuals who publicly engaged in a terrorist agenda. A few examples were provided by Lewiston Morning Tribune writer Michael Costello. “PETA donated $45,200 to . . . ALF [Animal Liberation Front] terrorist Rodney Coronado’s legal defense. (Coronado was convicted in connection with an arson attack at Michigan State University that caused $125,000 worth of damage and destroyed thirty-two years of research data.)

So, now that we've established (from multiple sources) that PETA has given money to people involved with things like arson, I have to ask again: Do you think that is a better use of your donations than having the money used to (for example) support animal shelters so that fewer animals have to be euthanized?
__________________

Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer
I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff)
I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant)
Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant)
Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 04:02 PM   #184
Dessi
Species Traitor
 
Dessi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 2,764
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
But how could it not be special pleading? The euthanesia is acceptable in one instance but condemned in another.
Suppose you voiced an opinion supporting the compassionately euthanizing a terminally ill patients, and Mr Critic turns around and says "ok, so you support murdering people on the street?". Mr Critic interrupts your incredulous laughter with the argument "Euthanasia? Murder? Both turn living people into dead people, what's the difference?"

Now, you can very well agree that its superficially true euthanasia and murder actually does create dead people, and simultaneously argue that are relevant differences between them. For a start, motives: motive behind one isn't the comparable to the other, argument's for one do not justify the other, arguments against one aren't necessarily arguments against the other. And so you've shown Mr Critic's grossly obtuse argument is barely more than a DOA word game.

Your comment on shelter euthanasia vs animal experimentation is exactly analogous -- except this time, you're Mr Critic.

Quote:
It is acceptable for a PETA member to use animal-product-derived medicines, but not acceptable for non-PETA members to produce them so that others (including the PETA members) can use them.
No different from the way that you depend on products which may be, directly or indirectly, a product of human slave labor, while objecting to human slavery in principle. Metals and minerals used in electronic equipment have a very strong chance of being mined by slaves or people working in very unsafe environments. If you live in a first-world country where computers and electronic devices are omnipresent, your entire livelihood is directly or indirectly built on the backs of human slaves. That's an argument against slavery, not for it.

With the understanding that your money is supporting human slavery, imagine if I criticized you using the exact same rhetoric leveled against animal rights activists: I'd call you a hypocrite who tacitly endorses human slavery. You'd object for obvious reasons products of that nature are omnipresent, you can't choose to avoid them even if you wanted, and it just isn't sensible to be criticize for choices where you have no alternatives. It's exactly analogous the the criticism you're trying to level against PETA, only applied to the unethical treatment of humans.

But since we're talking about experimentation, let's talk about experimentation: you likely object to syphilis research on non-consenting human subjects between conducted between the 1930s - 1970s, even if the studies tangibly benefited 1000s of people. And human experimentation trials involving radiation toxicity, biological warfare, hypothermia, high-G throughout the 20th century had an enormous human cost, though the outcome saved lives. Is that an argument for more human experimentation? By your own argument, not only is it permissible, but it'd be unethical not to continue the trend of human experimentation.

Quote:
But would you see PETA giving them a bye on animal research because the results of the research could help an exponentially-greater number of companion animals live fuller, healthier lives?
I think PETA holds opinions similar to mine: animal experimentation is absolutely permissible in all the areas where it would be acceptable to experiment on mentally similar humans.

Quote:
No; the right to take advantage of animal research is evidently reserved for PETA members in specific situations.
In as much as you advocate the right to benefit from human slavery so long as you're the one benefiting in specific situations.

Seriously though, no brownie points for criticizing a view that no PETA member holds in the first place.
__________________
>^.^<

Last edited by Dessi; 27th November 2012 at 04:11 PM.
Dessi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 04:15 PM   #185
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,302
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
So, once again, I ask: how do you feel about supporting an organization who's goals, if implemented right now would cause thousands of deaths?
Since there's no basis for the "right now" stipulation, and since PeTA is working against practices that cause hundreds of billions of deaths, I suppose I feel pretty good about it.
mumblethrax is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 04:17 PM   #186
Segnosaur
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,872
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Quote:
Again, we don't test on humans because, even if a person is an 'undesirable' we do still view them differently than mice, rats and the like. They are capable of making decisions, and even if they're currently homeless alcoholic street bums, they at least have the potential to do great things.
Nominated. For the Hall of Fame of Bad Arguments.
Errr... not really.

The fact that you don't like or agree (or even understand) the argument does not make it 'bad'.
Quote:
When did our standard for rights become the "potential to do great things"? And how do we define "great"?
I used the phrase "potential to do great things" to indicate that humans have, for the most part, abilities not seen in other species of the animal kingdom... we have culture, we can make plans for the future, we can engage in empathy, and we have an understanding of the world that other animals lack. (While some species have shown a few of these characteristics, none have it to the degree that we do.) That is what I meant by the term 'great things'.

I wanted to avoid derailing this thread any more than it has by getting into a discussion about "what separates us from other animals". I figured the differences in abilities between us and lower animals was rather self evident.


Quote:
It turns out chimps must be "less capable of making decisions" than infants
I used the word "potential" preemptively, in case someone tried bringing the argument "But what about babies"? A baby may not be able to "plan for the future", or to "engage in empathy" (or any of the other things that make human intellect different), but it will.

Quote:
Quote:
I'd also dispute that even if we could test on humans whether it would lead to faster cures (at least in some cases). Testing on animals does have additional advantages: shorter times to maturity, faster breeding times, and the ability to control the test subject's background.
Even though I think it's generally regarded as trivially obvious that experimenting directly on humans would yield far more insights than current animal research -- in part because it's relatively low-hanging, forbidden fruit -- let's put aside the question of which would lead to "faster cures"
Umm.... but that was the exact argument you made...

In post #177, you said: ...isn't it just a basic medical fact that the quickest, surest way to find cures for diseases would mean testing on humans?

So, you brought up the suggestion that "experimenting with humans would be faster", I brought up several reasons why it might not. All your claims about how "its a fact" or "its trivial" that experimenting with humans can cure diseases faster is certainly not trivial to prove.

Quote:
It's troubling how the organisms on earth fail to respect our hard line for differences between homo sapiens and other species. I know people who are NOTHING like me. They like the Beatles whereas I prefer the Stones. They have light hair whereas I have dark hair. They eat meat; I don't.
Perhaps you should consider giving the award for "bad arguments" to yourself.

In case you didn't notice, there is a world if difference between "what type of music do I like" and "do I have the ability to consider what will happen in 50 years and I'm an old guy"?

There will always be minor differences between individuals (in appearances and preferences), but baring some sudden spurt in evolution, we will always have intellectual abilities that other animals do not have.
Quote:
It's like Bentham said, "The question is not, 'Can they reason?' nor, 'Can they talk?' nor, 'Can they create an 18th level Paladin' but 'Can they suffer?'"
Umm... first of all, who exactly made Bentham the ultimate judge on any facet of our morality?

Secondly, according to Wikipedia, he once wrote:
I never have seen, nor ever can see, any objection to the putting of dogs and other inferior animals to pain, in the way of medical experiment, when that experiment has a determinate object, beneficial to mankind, accompanied with a fair prospect of the accomplishment of it..
(Wikipedia does give a source for the quote, but the source requires a subscription.)

So even if you want to consider Bentham as the judge on what is considered moral, he'd probably be siding with me if he were around.
__________________

Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer
I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff)
I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant)
Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant)
Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy

Last edited by Segnosaur; 27th November 2012 at 04:59 PM. Reason: Fixed up a few words
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 04:27 PM   #187
Segnosaur
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,872
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
Quote:
So, once again, I ask: how do you feel about supporting an organization who's goals, if implemented right now would cause thousands of deaths?
Since there's no basis for the "right now" stipulation...
PETA wants to end all animal testing. Since they have never given any sort of time frame I think its safe to assume they'd be happy if it were done immediately.

Furthermore, their financial support of groups like ALF (groups that are engaged in things like arson targeted at currently functioning labs) should mean that its pretty safe to talk about them wanting an impact "right now".

Quote:
...and since PeTA is working against practices that cause hundreds of billions of deaths, I suppose I feel pretty good about it.
You do know that those "hundreds of billions of deaths" are animal deaths (specifically non-human animals).

So, what exactly are you arguing? Are you arguing that the deaths of the animals are more important than the deaths of the humans? Or that because they are not likely to be successful we should keep supporting them?
__________________

Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer
I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff)
I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant)
Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant)
Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 04:56 PM   #188
Segnosaur
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,872
Originally Posted by Dessi View Post
Quote:
It is acceptable for a PETA member to use animal-product-derived medicines, but not acceptable for non-PETA members to produce them so that others (including the PETA members) can use them.
No different from the way that you depend on products which may be, directly or indirectly, a product of human slave labor, while objecting to human slavery in principle.
Your attempt to equate PETA's hypocricy with that of Checkmite's use of "slave based" products fails on a couple of levels...

- Its possible that Checkmite simply didn't know about how products he uses are produced. (There are millions of people still in slavery, but what products they produce isn't necessarily publicized. Its not like they put a sticker on the side of the box saying "Manufactured by slave 42314".) On the other hand, the folks in PETA know exactly where the drugs they use originated from.

- Although slavery is detestible, it may actually be counterproductive to the slave to avoid their products, since they may end up, well, starving as a result of any boycotts. (Its not a good idea, but it may be the best of several bad ideas.) On the other hand, the animals that were used in developing the medicines used by the PETA hypocrites likely got no benefits from the medical activities.

Quote:
I think PETA holds opinions similar to mine: animal experimentation is absolutely permissible in all the areas where it would be acceptable to experiment on mentally similar humans.
Given everything that's been said, you should be aware that that will result in the deaths of thousands.

So, you are completely comfortable with the death of those humans as a price of "animal rights"? (I notice you tend to be ignoring that question... I wonder why that is?)
__________________

Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer
I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff)
I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant)
Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant)
Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 05:45 PM   #189
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,302
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
PETA wants to end all animal testing.
So do I. So should everyone--it's a nasty business. As long as there are no realistic alternatives, credible arguments can be made from necessity.

Quote:
Since they have never given any sort of time frame I think its safe to assume they'd be happy if it were done immediately.
That doesn't follow, and is inconsistent with the common sense meaning of the word "goal" (we have short term goals and long term goals, but we never talk about "right now goals"). I think you just invented the "right now" stipulation to create hypothetical problems that have no connection to reality, similar to the "What if everyone went vegan tomorrow?" hypothetical that vegans are often subjected to. PeTA is dealing with the world we live in, going after the low-hanging fruit first, which is pretty obvious in how they prioritize their investigations (for example).

Quote:
Furthermore, their financial support of groups like ALF (groups that are engaged in things like arson targeted at currently functioning labs) should mean that its pretty safe to talk about them wanting an impact "right now".
I want an impact right now. There's plenty of animal research being conducted right now which is strictly unnecessary.

Quote:
You do know that those "hundreds of billions of deaths" are animal deaths (specifically non-human animals).
No kidding. You didn't specify human deaths, and it's worth reminding people of the staggering scale of the atrocity that PeTA is up against, against which the imaginary horrors that would follow from stilted readings of PeTA's goals seem pretty insignificant.

Quote:
So, what exactly are you arguing? Are you arguing that the deaths of the animals are more important than the deaths of the humans? Or that because they are not likely to be successful we should keep supporting them?
Yes, of course I think the hundreds of billions of non-human animals that will die (after living miserable lives) in the next year due to a set of practices that we are complicit in are more important than the thousands of human deaths that won't result from the practices that I support (which should not be construed to be the whole universe of practices that PeTA or ALF engage in, but certainly many of the ones mentioned here). Go ahead an handwave them away--it's crucial that we talk about these people who would die if PeTA got your way.
mumblethrax is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 05:59 PM   #190
John Mekki
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 535
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
You do know that those "hundreds of billions of deaths" are animal deaths (specifically non-human animals).
[pedantic]
The classifications of animals into human animals and non-human animals is a conventional one, like the classification of animals into species and sub-species
At the end, IMHO, what it counts is if the living being is suffering or not
Few will argue that animals are not suffering when they get killed
[/pedantic]
John Mekki is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 06:26 PM   #191
Crocoshark
Critical Thinker
 
Crocoshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 375
Originally Posted by John Mekki View Post
Which kind of food makes you fatter:
1) an hamburger with meat
2) a dish of lettuce without oil (well, little bit of oil)

I am not really interested in this kind of "trolling" conversation
As a vegetarian, that comparison has no application to me. I've never eaten either of those foods.

Replace 2 with a cheese quessadilla or veggie burger.

But then, I'm still pretty skinny and don't know that I've seen a fat vegetarian. Although, I've never looked for one.
Crocoshark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 06:47 PM   #192
John Mekki
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 535
Originally Posted by Crocoshark View Post
[..]
But then, I'm still pretty skinny and don't know that I've seen a fat vegetarian. [..]
More or less what I was trying to say.
John Mekki is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 07:34 PM   #193
The_Fire
Unimpressed Female
 
The_Fire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 8th level of Hell - Maleborgia
Posts: 3,211
Originally Posted by Nosi View Post
Aren't the grouse endangered?
AFAIK: No. At least not this type:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...us_Muta%29.jpg
__________________
If anyone told you that I'm a nice person, they were either from a different level of existance, lying through their teeth or mentally instable.
"We? That better be you and that invisible aardwarck in your pocket you are talking about, because I KNOW you are not stupid enough to open a giant can of whoop ass by claiming you know what I think."
Stop Sylvia Browne
The_Fire is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 08:55 PM   #194
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 23,740
Originally Posted by John Mekki View Post
More or less what I was trying to say.
It's rare to see a strong vegetarian as well.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 09:13 PM   #195
Dessi
Species Traitor
 
Dessi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 2,764
[Doubles in size, scissor kicks thaiboxerken through a continent]
__________________
>^.^<

Last edited by Dessi; 27th November 2012 at 09:14 PM.
Dessi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 11:46 PM   #196
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 8,813
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Errr... not really.

The fact that you don't like or agree (or even understand) the argument does not make it 'bad'.
Sure. It's bad because it utterly fails to support your claims. It's a lousy argument for a couple reasons and you should abandon it immediately.

Quote:
I used the phrase "potential to do great things" to indicate that humans have, for the most part, abilities not seen in other species of the animal kingdom... we have culture, we can make plans for the future, we can engage in empathy, and we have an understanding of the world that other animals lack. (While some species have shown a few of these characteristics, none have it to the degree that we do.) That is what I meant by the term 'great things'.
Ah. So what you meant by "great things" was that humans can do things non-humans cannot, and therefore humans can freely prey on non-humans. The abilities you mention strike me as not only morally arbitrary, but fail to apply to all humans, hence the inclusion this round of the dependent clause "for the most part" and the ad hoc distinction that animals do not possess these arbitrarily chosen abilities "to the degree" we do.

Quote:
I wanted to avoid derailing this thread any more than it has by getting into a discussion about "what separates us from other animals". I figured the differences in abilities between us and lower animals was rather self evident.
Well, you're naturally going to encounter this problem in any discussion of animal testing. Above Dessi was quick to concede that if we're talking about testing, then what's permissible for a chimp ought to be permissible for a mentally similar human.

The other problem is whether or not you're basing your distinctions on morally relevant criteria. Nobody in PeTA or anywhere else is arguing that we give animals library cards so they can participate in "developing culture." The argument is that animals should not be caged and poked as it causes them to suffer.

Quote:
I used the word "potential" preemptively, in case someone tried bringing the argument "But what about babies"? A baby may not be able to "plan for the future", or to "engage in empathy" (or any of the other things that make human intellect different), but it will.
But this is a distinction without a difference. The nine million dead sperm on my girlfriend's chin had the potential to one day become ne'erdowell potheads. This "potentiality" stuff gets routinely brought up and it's chickens and eggs, oak trees and acorns.

Umm.... but that was the exact argument you made...

Quote:
In post #177, you said: ...isn't it just a basic medical fact that the quickest, surest way to find cures for diseases would mean testing on humans?

So, you brought up the suggestion that "experimenting with humans would be faster", I brought up several reasons why it might not. All your claims about how "its a fact" or "its trivial" that experimenting with humans can cure diseases faster is certainly not trivial to prove.

Perhaps you should consider giving the award for "bad arguments" to yourself.
I guess that "bad argument hall of fame" remark stung more than I thought it would. As for human testing, I guessed it would be something any fair-minded person would be willing to grant, but in retrospect perhaps I made the mistake of assuming you would be fair-minded. Nevertheless, as I implied in my last post, I'm willing to set aside the non-essential point without conceding it: while we may disagree if human testing presents the "quickest" or "best" route to developing cures, we can agree (yes?) it's another avenue. Or to go back to the first metaphor, a tool in the toolbox.

Overwhelmingly people will oppose forced human testing -- and I'm guessing you're included in this group -- not because it's ineffective but because it's immoral. This is the fundamental, important distinction, so there's no point pussyfooting around it. Would you oppose testing on humans even if it meant finding a cure for cancer or AIDS or restless leg syndrome?

Quote:
Umm... first of all, who exactly made Bentham the ultimate judge on any facet of our morality?
I had no idea quoting Bentham approvingly made him the supreme arbiter on matters of morality, although I suppose this objection is one way of avoiding the point.

Quote:
Secondly, according to Wikipedia, he once wrote:
I never have seen, nor ever can see, any objection to the putting of dogs and other inferior animals to pain, in the way of medical experiment, when that experiment has a determinate object, beneficial to mankind, accompanied with a fair prospect of the accomplishment of it..
(Wikipedia does give a source for the quote, but the source requires a subscription.)

So even if you want to consider Bentham as the judge on what is considered moral, he'd probably be siding with me if he were around.
And this is a second way of avoiding the point.

Utilitarianism is not necessarily inconsistent with animal testing. Or human testing. Your mistake is that because you've reached the same conclusions as Bentham, you think you're closer to him, but this discussion centers around not what we believe but how we justify our beliefs.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 12:02 AM   #197
John Mekki
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 535
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
[..]The nine million dead sperm on my girlfriend's chin had the potential to one day become ne'erdowell potheads. [..]
Whoa!
John Mekki is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 01:59 AM   #198
Kahalachan
Illuminator
 
Kahalachan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,221
My primarily pedestrian lifestyle is much safer for the environment and animals than driving.

This gives me the right to vandalize other people's cars.

Someone give me money to continue this noble effort of forcing people to drive less.
Kahalachan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 02:05 AM   #199
Wildy
Adelaidean
 
Wildy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,237
Originally Posted by Kahalachan View Post
My primarily pedestrian lifestyle is much safer for the environment and animals than driving.

This gives me the right to vandalize other people's cars.

Someone give me money to continue this noble effort of forcing people to drive less.
Perhaps I will, so long as you don't vandalise my car, because I'll need it to further your efforts to stop people from driving.
__________________
Latest Blog Posts:Atheism+
More Atheism+ stuff

Wildy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 03:18 AM   #200
foxholeatheist
Graduate Poster
 
foxholeatheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,159
If we are making no meaningful distinction between the morality of eating certain species than I think that baleen whales may be the biggest mass murderers of all time.

Stop the krill slaughter!!
__________________
You start wearing the blue and brown and
You're working for the clampdown
-The Clash

My Band!
The Heimlich County Gun Club
foxholeatheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:53 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.