Wimbeldon vs. PETA

Remove all ads!

Lots of people hate kids, and I'm pretty damn sure his tongue was inserted firmly in cheek.

EDIT: Sorry, Ms. Cal Jones, for getting your gender wrong. I'd correct it, but the error is a matter of history and the ensuing posts would make less sense without it's presence.

You've failed to prove this. What you've provided was an example of a kook who lacked the sense of proportion necessary to recognize the utter ridiculousness of re-locating large populations of people as a method of combating de-forestation. Lacking proportion and caring more about animals than people are not the same thing. People do the wrong things or employ the wrong methods for the right reasons all the time. There are adherents to every ideology who take their ideology too far. This doesn't mean that these people care more about [insert ideological belief here] than they do about people.

Environmentalists who go too far do not care more about the environment than they do about people, just as businessman like Ken Lay who go too far in the name of profit still love their families and children more than they love money - and it is often because of their love of their families (who, may I point out, are people) that such individuals become so obsessed with getting ahead that they throw conventional ethics out the window.

No. This is not what animal rights activists stand for. The founding philosophical statement upon which the modern animal rights movement is based is arguably found in Animal Liberation, by Peter Singer.

While Singer is hardly the first person to apply the concept of moral standing to non-human animals, it is upon this work that the modern movement, at least, is based*. In Animal Liberation, Singer himself rejects the use of the theoretical framework of rights when it comes to animals. Instead, he argued that the interests of animals should be considered because of their ability to feel suffering and that the idea of rights was not necessary in order to consider them.

The central argument of his book is an expansion of the utilitarian idea that 'the greatest good for the greatest number' is the only measure of good or ethical behaviour. Singer -and, by extension, the animal rights movement - argues that there is no reason not to apply this to other animals.

* Groups like AAVS (the American Anti-Vivisection Society) have been around for well over 100 years, so no one can really claim credit for being first.

 

I don't have to. And how can I? I explicitly said I do not make a generalisation, but that there are people with problematic views.

He also suggested that sabotage would be a splendid idea. With that I want to underline that there is a direct connection between the fervour of belief or subjective weight of grievance and the desire for action.

No? What does 'taking their ideology too far' mean then? By implication, it means they do care more about their ideology than about people. Whenever people take their ideology very much to their heart, there is the chance that it offers itself as political violence, or ideologically motivated violence. And by saying that I do not make a judgement on their personal character. Bin Laden thinks it is perfectly ok to kill Americans and Westerners in pursuit of his jihad, but he probably is a nice person to his family.

But what is the greatest good for the greatest number is an assessment on the way to which you can make some substantial errors. The lack of sense of proportion is probably the single most important thing on this way. The outcome of your argument depends largely on which animal's right you put in front. This world is dominated by humans, and like it or not, the assessment of what's 'the greatest good for the greatest number' has to take that into account.

Now you're a nice person with a proper sense of proportion, and no doubt there are many others. We disagree on much less than it sounds like. What worries me is the kooks who clearly do lack the sense of proportion. They do cause harm. In that I include folks who spray on furs or leather jackets (I have seen that happening in Cologne's city center), liberate milk cows who then perish because they don't get milked or, and that was really a stroke of moronic genius, who liberated North American Minks from a fur farm in Bavaria (That'll teach them rich! Enslaving animals for their precious furs! Outrageous!) into Freedom with a capital F - to be precise the freedom of these aggressive little buggers to invade a wildlife resort that held threatened species of rare birds where they then swiftly wiped out about 80+% of the local bird population. Crass examples, and, conceded, relatively rare ones too, but this is reality based crassness, that indicates a clear lack of clear thinking on part of those who took action for the cause.

 

Splunge I do not hold myself above people who are chagrined about the plight of hairless cats in colder climates and who spend their lives knitting them sweaters. What does get on my nerves is those people who because they are oh so active in some minor problem and thus puts themselves on some moral highground. "I help abandoned puppies, that means I am such a good and awesome person and better than all of you", my entire point is that to really earn an attitude such as that you might want to pick your causes with more thought.

To stay more strictly within the topic : when will PETA protest agains all the rat poison being put out all over the world? Bug zappers? Cockroach poisons?

I would like to see their lists of which animals it is right to protect and which we shouldn't. I am sure they are outraged about the shootings of street dogs in many places around the world while they couldn't care less about the attempted genocide on the common rat that happens everywhere despite feral dogs being just as big a problem as rats are in some places.

 

Yup. That's my point about pigeons as a pest.

 

Actually giving money to starving africans is one step of the process of creating stability in Africa. Economical stability will prevent conflicts which rise from lack of resources. Reducing mortality rates and malnutrition will make it possible to give education. You can't educate people who are struggling for their lives. Educating women will decrease birth rates, which will lead to declining number in population. Lesser people with better education in how to use their resources more productively will increase the chances of economical stability, which will lead to better chances of ecological stability as well.

One of the biggest threat to endangered species is illegal hunting which is done in the hopes of getting profitable income. Poaching in Africa increases dramatically during times of conflict and the money is used to buy weapons for war.

Species extinction is a major loss to the health industry, decreasing the possibilities of researching new medicinal plant and animal extracts and ultimately better medication for the future. As an example: Environment and health: 7. Species loss and ecosystem disruption — the implications for human health

So all in all, giving money to starving africans might not be such a bad idea after all...

But giving money to PETA? Don't know enough abut PETA to make a stand, but AFAIK and in the light of news such as this they seem like a bunch of fanatics, which isn't such a good thing...

 

Ah, OK, I see now. You're basically saying that it's OK to get involved in non-human causes, but don't go around acting like a saint if the cause is trivial. That wasn't how I interpreted your earlier posts, but thanks for the clarification. Although the problem is who gets to decide what is trivial. Not you. And certainly not me. I'm not saying I disagree with you in principle, but I'm not sure how one defines "trivial". Certainly you have your definition, and I have mine, but our respective definitions may differ from each other, and from other people's as well.

Agreed entirely. Although this kind of gets back to what I said above about who gets to decide what is important.

 

I would argue that you shouldn't go around acting like a saint even if the cause is serious. Christ says in the Bible that when you give charity, don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. I'd say that's good advice regardless of your religious persuasion. Nothing to me is as obnoxious as these people who go around saying "I give money to the children in Africa, I give to the local food bank, I volunteer at the animal shelter" and their tone and demeanor clearly says "what are you doing? I'm better than you!" It's the attitude more than the behaviour that bothers me.

On the other hand, I know a lot of people who simply go around, contributing to the community in all the ways mentioned above, and don't make a big deal about it. Those are the people I respect.

When we talk about PETA, as Ragusa so ably pointed out, they want attention, the more the better, and while I don't agree with their agenda, if they pursue that attention legally, that's their right -- as is the right of their adversaries to defend themselves legally.

As soon as they start throwing paint on people wearing furs or breaking into private property to release animals that are legally owned, though, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law -- unshakeable personal conviction does not give you the right to commit assault on law abiding citizens or trespass and destroy property.

 

(Off topic)

Heh. Not quite, don't hate 'em, I just I really don't have any tolerance for them, never wanted them and don't want to be around them. I don't mean 'em harm either, and despise child cruelty, but who doesn't?
Oh and I'm a "she" by the way - which is why my horror of small stinky brats is all the more horrifying.

Back to pigeons, starving africans and laziness, then.

 

What you are forgetting is that environmentalists* often see their cause in human terms, believing that the consequences for all life - humans included - would be exceedingly dire should we not take extreme and radical action. These people obviously place their ideology above reality, but they do not do so because they value their ideology more than people. In fact, they quite often do so out of concern for their fellow man.

* Animal rights activists are often a different story, but you never really hear about animal rights activists intentionally killing people in order to save the lives of animals, which would indicate that they value the lives of people - or at least their human, non-animal selves, since they aren't willing to risk their own lives or life in prison "just" to save an animal's life - more than the lives of animals.

Agreed.

When it would actually have a chance of being taken seriously. PETA isn't going to protest roach poisons, per se, because not only is there a public health element to leaving such infestations alone, but they would also be a laughing stock if they proffered such an argument. They naturally recommend preemption (keeping the house exceptionally clean, using natural repellents), but they recognize that extermination of roaches is sometimes necessary when preemption fails or isn't conducted. PETA isn't going to protest bug zappers because no one would care, but good luck finding a member of PETA who owns one. PETA doesn't protest rat poison, again, because no one would care, and protests only work when they generate a response, but they strongly advocate using the numerous no-kill pest solutions currently available on the market.

You'd be quite wrong about this. PETA protests animal research on mice, so it should be fairly obvious that they don't discriminate on the basis of size or significance (they discriminate on the basis of feasibility, instead, choosing not to waste their time on hopeless causes) when deciding which animals to advocate.

 

Cynical me would agree with that sentence would it use 'frame' instead of 'see'. See is probably not in all cases correct. They have to operate in the human sphere, so they would lose much appeal if they expressly put animal interests first. There is a chance that 'We campaign to resettle all of you to save the beavers (or else)' will fail to generate much support for their cause, let alone raise funds. Let us find a way to save the beavers and live together in balanced harmony with nature'! sounds much better, especially if this half hearted weak sister compromise it is being uttered by, say, a hot chick.

Even though that insight admittedly can be interpreted as a design of reflection and moderation, which suggests I ought to be more generous, it can alternatively mean that they merely have acquired some marketing skills, which means they are just deceptive Deep down in their zealous black hearts they're probably still the evil druids from the BG games Druids, you're on notice!

 

Christ, it has to be said... you guys don't half argue about some pointless rubbish!

 

Oi! Cockroaches is serious business!