Wimbeldon vs. PETA

Remove all ads!

One problem. These people don't exist. Animal rights activists - even the kooky ones - do not value the lives of animals more than people. Find an animal rights activist, and you've just found a human rights activist, too. Animal rights activism goes hand in hand with human rights activism and environmentalism (although it isn't always true in reverse). Spending the time and effort to advocate for animal rights doesn't preclude one from doing the same for other causes...

 

But you have to admit drew, that a fair number value animal life AS MUCH as they value human life, which was part of his statement.

As far as animal rights activists go, you seem to be the only rationale one i have ever encountered. The last PETA members i encountered were protesting at a food bank that was accepting their first shipment of meat from the North Carolina Hunters for the Hungry(NCHFTH). Now these food banks help feed people who have nowhere else to go & this low-life piece of trash, whose rights i risked my life to defend in the marines, had the audacity to call me a bambi-killer,murderer, etc. & then spat in my face. Do you know how hard it was not to break his little tree-hugger neck right then & there? I could have & been within my rights as what he had done can be considered assault with a bodily fluid. I didn't but i bet my blood pressure could have sent a rocket to the moon. The administrator called the police & had them removed from the property & of course they complained that WE were violating their rights!
I wouldn't believe anything a member of PETA swore to on a stack of bibles, they are all a bunch of zealots.

 

Drew,
they do exist. Now I don't make a general rule out of that, but they do exist. I have met such people. And I am old enough to have met the really confused folks back in the 1980s. For one they are generally very empathic. Their problem is to put all their empathy into proper context.

One of them, in the 1990s, had such great empathy that he, in face of a massive deforestation for open coal mining (go to 50°54'25.47"N/ 6°30'10.86"E on Google Earth and you'll see what I mean), with great anger scolded me for disagreeing with him on that re-settling people to restore a forest is a great idea. It is not that I disagreed with him in that the deforestation was bad. The forest was wonderful, one of the few really old ones in my area, and they resettled people and entire villages to get to the coal - the problem was that I didn't go far enough. Uprooting trees is always a sad thing, but for me uprooting people from the place they and their ancestors lived in and grew up is much more of a concern, because it deprives especially the old people who have live their all their lives of their roots and culturally of their heimat. It was not conservation of the forest that he wanted (sign me up, I am conservative), it was restoration to the status quo-ante, before man set foot into the forest, or maybe to how it was back in 1000 BC.

The common denominator that I can spot is a guilt complex. The more radical ones subordinate the the interests of the human race under a greater cause, the eco-system, the planet or some other abstraction. The consequent pursuit of such reasoning can take you to some very dark places. As far as guilt is concerned they remind me of people who feel so guilty for the burden they put on the planet by the mere act of living, that they consider having large families an eco-crime. Meet the women who won't have babies - because they're not eco friendly.

martaug makes a good point on that many who are less radical are still equalling the live of a creature and of a human. That is in my understanding one of the points behind being vegan. To me that is a silly thing. I respect the dignity of the living creature, but I see there is a difference to a human being. I love my tomcat dearly, and I terribly spoil him, but he is still just a cat.

 

Well. Call me extremist or crazy or whatever, but since when have we been given right over pigeon lives? Two innocent birds fluttering around is less important than two humans hitting a ball around? I don't care how many people are watching that tennis match nor how important it is - why should the pigeon deaths be justifiable? I understand when scaring off or even killing birds at airports, but that could potentially cause hundreds of human lives to be lost. This is only a stupid tennis match. It's not really that important. Nobody's going to die because of the pigeons.

Giving an analogy, that's like two dogs walking across the street and a pedestriain being justified to sniper shoot them in the face because they would have distracted drivers. And that's not even a good example, because a car crash could cause deaths. This can't.

Taking a step back, I understand the perceived importance of the tennis match, but they could've used tranquiliser darts or something, could they not?

 

Drew, all you need to do is scroll up in this thread where Cal Jones claims to like cats better than children. There are many many people who both value animals over humans and then another huge group who value them equally (mostly only cute and furry animals of course).

I do not disagree on your opinion of their general views, they probably share similar views as me. The difference is that they are people who actually act, spending time and effort to improve things but what is it they spend their energy on? It sure isnt the humans and the human issues, it is the animals. Neither me nor them actually do anything about human suffering, me because I so very lazy and they because they already spend all their time, effort and money on housing abandoned cats.

 

Deathmage,
hunting pigeons (or rats for that) in cities is sensible because they're a health concern. Fed by old ladies and feeding on trash their numbers multiply fast. They're ****ting all over the place. In Cologne they routinely hunt pigeons for that reason. Occasionally, they send out hunters with hawks to parts of the city, and it is an amazing sight to see the hawks catch their prey.

That it is at the occasion of the Wimbledon tennis matches that they do hunt pigeons doesn't make hunting pigeons per se any less sensible. It is an additional incentive.

 

Ragusa,
I suppose with the gathering of people at Wimbledon, it is an important health concern, and thus justifiable (though you'd think they could clean the tables a bit more - as they should after each meal anyway - and put up tent-thingies...whatchamacallits).
Still, that article makes it seem like the health incensitive was "tacked on" as an additional reason.

 

DM,
nope. The health concern exists independently of Wimbledon; it exists in all major cities.

 

I know. I meant in Wimbledon especially it might be a big concern because of the big gathering of international people who could spread it blah blah.

 

Wrote a rant, but it's much too ranty to post here.

Basically - not everyone should be expected to care about what you think is important. Animal activists get out and do a lot for their chosen cause and interest - I doubt the people in this thread saying 'Oh, they should go and help Africans instead' are doing a tenth as much for Africans as animal activists are for what they care about, and so really should just stfu. Just because they're activists doesn't mean they have to care any more about the starving children in Africa or do any more to help them than the average person does (i.e. nothing).

A lot of people here seem to be saying that activists should have some kind of greater obligation to go and help starving Africans by virtue of being activists. Perhaps you should go and rant at people who do nothing for anything instead? That would probably be hypocritical, but oh well. There's nothing quite like telling people what they ought to be doing instead of the entirely valid thing that they actually are doing.

I've recently been on the receiving end of such pompous dickery ('OMG, why aren't you protesting *this* instead? It's sooooo much more important than *that*'). It sounds stupid to me every time they say it, especially when it's a pretty sure thing that they're not doing anything for what they think you should be doing.

 

Agreed. People should do whatever they feel most strongly about and others should respect that. The fact I give a toss about cats doesn't mean I'm some bleeding heart tree hugger who puts animals above people. I eat meat (free range if possible - animals really do taste better if they're chilled out and happy), weather leather and enjoy watching the Grand National.

As far as kids go, I'm just not a maternal woman and have a low tolerance for children, so I've chosen not to have any myself and generally avoid situations where a lot of children are present. Having said that, if I was in a burning building and was forced to choose between rescuing a child and rescuing a pet, then I would rescue the child, obviously.

But, I don't agree with the notion that humans > all else. The fact this planet is such a mess is because there is too bleedin' many of us. The ecosystem is out of balance, resources are running out, and we're warring over the fragments. So forgive me if I'd rather give money to causes other than starving Africans.

Re: pigeons - I'm sure the marksmen are not shooting the pigeons while people are around - after all, a dead pigeon falling into someone's lunch is a lot worse than pigeon poop.

 

That is the thing Aikanaro, I personally do not care enough about anything to actually do anything about it. What I really do find is hypocritical is people who do care enough about things and go out and do things about it. They have hte interest to make a difference and then they make a conscious decision of what they find to be the most important and those decisions are in my opinion horrible. We are spending billions on prostate cancer research and cat saving and god knows what else while the world is such an injust place most people, me including, just close our eyes and pretend it isn't there. Heck, I know most people do not see things as I do and on some level it is probably better to do something than to do nothing. I just get revolted when people get so upset about certain things while ignoring so many others. At least I am consistent and ignore everything. It is like the horror the world had for the 3000 people who died on 9/11 and yes it was horrible but not many cares about the hundreds of thousands of people who die equally horrible deaths all over the world. This spring there was a horrendous murdercase here in Sweden where a man kidnapped, raped, killed and then burned a nine year old girl. The country was in an uproar and everyone was lamenting the horror of the death of that child. Where is that outrage when things like that happen every single day all over the world? I find it repulsive that people who can be so selectively outraged and caring while not giving a flying frick about 99% of the horrors that happen in the world. That I find truly hypocritical.

Most of us only care about things that they can relate to and feel for, cute puppies, blond adorable little girls. Who gives a rats ass about smelly potbellied African children? About Iraqi children with blown off limbs from American clusterbombs? About Bangladeshi brothels full of ten year olds? I guess it is safe and it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling that you are doing good when you dedicate your life to some minor inconvinience and it makes it easier to live with yourself for ignoring all of the above and so much more.

 

But you see, your opinion is entirely irrelevant, insignificant and not worthy of consideration because of this:

Basically, why should anyone give a hoot about your opinion when you don't give a hoot about anything?

 

That's pretty harsh, Splunge, but accurate! Perhaps some people are thinking along these lines: I can't do much about the Bangladeshi brothels or the maimed children in Iraq, but I CAN do something locally. If that's the logic behind some animal rights activists then I can empathize with them a little more, but I still have to go with Joaqin and say that even locally there are lots of people who need our help and should get it before the animals do.

 

Of course no one needs to listen to what I have to say, that doesn't stop me from saying it. I comfort myself in being consistent in ignoring everything. I do not understand people who have the energy and interest to get activated and then pick those silly causes to devote their lives to.

 

Don't get me wrong, i fully support PETA or any animal rights groups right to protest however when their protest involves spitting on someone or violence against someone that disagrees with you than you have violated their rights.

Not trying to put words in you mouth joacqin, but it seems that you are saying & acting like you feel that there is too much suffering in the world so why bother? is that a correct summary?

 

Not really, I am just very lazy and selfish and can't be arsed. I care enough to be aware of the problems but thats about that.

 

Let’s say I support the Humane Society. Now joacqin might say that’s silly when I could be supporting a food bank. But at least I’m supporting something worthwhile; maybe not as worthwhile as a food bank, but worthwhile nonetheless. Alternatively, I could be like joacqin and support nothing, and instead spend my money and time on only myself. I would call that being selfish (as did joacqin in the above post). I’m not sure how supporting a worthy cause not related to humans is worse than selfishly supporting nothing. To try and hold oneself out as somehow being superior for doing nothing rather than something (when that something isn't harmful) is IMO an odd way of thinking.

Edit: I just realized that this might be bordering on getting too personal. I wouldn't have posted it if joacqin himself hadn't admitted he was lazy and selfish, but in any event, that's all I'm going to say in this regard. Not to mention that it's way off-topic.

 

I'm not certain it's that far off topic, though, because in cases like this Wimbledon deal, my first reaction to the PETA people is to say "don't these people have anything better to do with their time?" Many agree. I'm not saying they don't have a legal right to protest through legal channels, but even when they do so I think they are wasting their time and energy when IMHO there are a lot of other more important things they could be putting their efforts into, like helping local homeless people.

In moral terms (as opposed to legal ones) I find what they are doing to be reprehensible in that they are utterly obsessed with the actions of other people. If those actions do not affect the protesters, I am a big believer in minding one's own business. If they don't want to kill pigeons then they don't have to, but that's no reason to go out and inconvenience people just because of your own personal beliefs.

 

PETA picks Wimbledon merely because of the publicity, suggesting that the pigeons are being killed off to spare the rich the possible poop out of the sky. Which is just a silly PR stunt as pigeons being hunted is everyday business. They're basically a pest in any large city, and are being dealt with accordingly.

However, spinning it as 'Rich people order pigeons being killed off for convenience!' is a chance for visible activism with a good yield. It sounds plenty outrageous, and that makes it sell better as it cleverly exploits class bias, that is what makes it appealing. Never mind that it is a distortion as long as the cause is just.