Peta and Animal Rights

Remove all ads!

You haven't been paying attention, then. Go back and look through the PETA and veganism threads here at SP, and see what the liberals on this forum had to say about PETA, animal rights, and even veganism in general when they weighed in. It wasn't anything good.

Not exactly. The ELF is incapable of literally recruiting anyone. I will concede that they do encourage people to act on their own and that what they are encouraging people to do on their own is often illegal. Remember, classically speaking, there is no ELF -- just a bunch of individuals and small groups of extremists acting independently and crediting the ELF with their actions. There is no Bin Laden sitting at the top of the ELF. There is no central organization. There is no central funding. There is no recruiting office. There is a press office that provides sympathetic reporting of ELF activities and disseminates pro-ELF propaganda, but that press office doesn't actually recruit anyone.

 

Like I said, idealogically if not directly. I understand that ELF is, at best, a loose conglomeration of like-minded individuals, but that still means you can persuade someone to be a like-minded individual and to become associated with that loose conglomeration.

 

... only Zuul.

That made a rather disturbing mental image....

 

Sorry to go back a few days, but...

Even if I agree that abortion, adoption, and single parenthood all cause great harm to society (which I don't, but for the sake of arguement we'll assume I do), premarital sex does not generally cause societal harm. I suppose if you're 15 and if you're not using any type of protection, and if you got pregnant, and if you had to decide on whether to get an abortion or become a single parent, that it is theoretically possible that there are certain situations where it causes some societal harm. But it is incorrect to say that all premarital sex (or even the majority of it) causes harm to society.

Not to brag ar anything, but I had pre-marital sex with the woman I'm currently married to dozens of times, and that doesn't even count partners I had who I never had any intention of marrying. The truth is, if you're a shade more intelligent and responsible than a box of rocks, you don't get the girl knocked up, and you don't get an STD. Or to put in another way, no harm to society.

 

At the risk of sounding like a pedantic prick, I'm going to explain why I tend to use the word liberal when talking about animal rights activists.

To me, liberal means someone who is on the left side of the political spectrum in terms of what they want society to do. They advocate change. Some of them advocate huge changes (communists) while others advocate only minor changes in what society does and / or accepts (moderates, Democrats, some socialists). Opposing them are conservatives -- those who advocate tradition and maintaining the status quo. They do not see the need for society to change, and in extreme cases wish to revert to the way things were "in the good old days" -- that is to say, undo changes that have been made and return to the value systems / economic practices / whatever of days gone by. This is simplistic and does not fully describe the whole range of human behaviour, but it is a good enough discussion for now.

Now for thousands of years, mankind has domesticated animals and used them for our benefit. We have used them for food, clothing, tools (in the far past, anyhow), transportation, entertainment, and companionship, among other things. We've also used them for science experiments for a quite some time to determine if something is or isn't safe for human use. This has become tradition.

Enter the animal rights activists. Because they advocate changes -- in some cases drastic changes -- in how we view animals and how we use them, using my classification system above, they tend to be liberals, because as I stated earlier, liberals tend to advocate changes to the society that often involve the cessation of traditional (ie conservative) practices and behaviours.

Now some activists are more conservative in nature in that they claim that our current behaviours are a change from a pre-existing standard, and they wish to return to that standard. But IMHO they are in the minority.

My

 

Well, the problem here is what you mean by "society has been this way and liberals want to change it." Just as an example, gays are nothing new to society and have been around since the dawn of time, and somtimes accepted and sometimes not. For liberals, none of these issues are about the actual theme, but about rights; who has them, why don't they have them and who doesn't have them. So that may be why some people think of animal rights as a liberal issue.

Liberals tend to move against established institutions that diminish rights, so in that sense they are for "change." The problem here is that as a liberal, I've never heard much about animal rights as being high, or even at all on the agenda. The people I've known in the past who were members of PETA were moderate Republicans who just happened to really like animals. As I said, I've never thought that liking animals was a right/left issue.

 

Well, not to derail the topic here too much but when I think of liberals I see them as trying to define everything in the world as a "right" and proceeding from that basis. By couching all of their arguments in terms of "someone's rights are being denied" they manage to evoke a strong response from people but it doesn't necessarily follow that those who oppose their positions are "anti-rights".

Going back to the animal thing, though, an unrelated point I wanted to mention is that when I see activists of all sorts running around, I tend to think the following about animal rights activists:

"There are people being tortured around the world, people being starved out of their homes, people being forced to sell their daughters into prostitution. And right in your own back yard there are people starving, living on the streets, and jobless. There are children suffering horrific abuse. And you want me to donate money to saving abandoned pets? Seriously? If I have any extra income, it's going to go to alleviating the suffering of a fellow human being first -- to a human hospital, and not to your foolish animal hospital."

I'm not big into activism at the best of times, and I think that a lot of these sorts are youthful idealists, but even so, I hold Amnesty International and other human rights groups in higher regard than I do PETA or their ilk simply because while I don't advocate animal torture or abuse, I value human life above that of animal life. Simple as that.

 

You are being sarcastic here, and no liberals don't see "everything" in the world as a right. Certainly their views are much broader than the opposing side regarding rights, but as I mentioned it's really individual rights opposed to the larger, more powerful institutional claim to greater rights. Allow me the "right" to be sarcastic in return: As an example, the opposing side believes that it's a constitutional right to essentially bribe a congressman with campaign donations, while a poor person does not have a right to decent health care; liberals believe the reverse. But I liked this comment because as a liberal I understand where you are coming from:

I could not agree more. And it's not that I don't like animals, only that you've raised a valid point.

 

I know they don't see "everything" as a right. But what they do see as a right sometimes is not seen that way by others. Marriage being a prime example that I shall strive not to get into here. So that part of my post was sarcastic.

But the part about couching all of their arguments in terms of rights, that wasn't sarcastic -- in fact, to a degree it's a show of respect for the rhetorical skills of liberals. I mean, who can seriously go into an argument being "anti-rights"? yet that's what their opponents sound like when they allow liberals to set the variables of a discourse. But it's smart arguing on the part of the liberals, and there's no sarcasm there -- I can disagree with a group and still respect both their position and their rhetorical / logical skills.

 

Nor are all meat contaminations harmful, but that doesn't mean the risk isn't sizable. If you cook your meat thoroughly, it's still safe, but not everyone does. Our society is currently suffering greatly from teen and pre-marital pregnancies, as well as STDs. Sure, precautions can be taken, and they generally work very well, but all too often they just aren't used.

And I am quite certain that you are a much wiser person than most members of society.

The problem is that, while this is a good characterisation of the overall liberal/conservative debate, it doesn't really describe any current situation, just the overall trend. Because of that, it's easy to disagree with it.

Seeing eye dogs, canine cop units, those dogs with the hot-cider barrels in avelanche areas. We still use them for tools today.

All in all, an excellent assessment, and what I was trying to say, only better.

Ah, but in the more recent past, homosexuality was heavily discriminated against. Obviously, ancient Greece wasn't the 'good old days'.

Seriously, though, there's a saying: There's nothing new under the sun. I'm sure if you looked for it, you could find similar movements to anything somewhere in history. Animal rights? Why, that's just ahimsa from Buddhism all over again, right? Feminism? Amazons reborn!

There's a difference between liking animals and saying humanity shouldn't use animals for anything at all ever. The SPCA, I would buy as a non-partisan group, but not PETA. Remember, PETA is trying to establish 'animal rights', and attacking established institutions that diminish those rights.

 

I think one of the main reasons we have such differing opinions on this is because I feel that anyone who is even somewhat educated on contraception can pretty easily avoid a pregnancy. I think you have to pretty dumb to unintentionally get pregnant nowadays.

I found this site from January of this year that lists a lot of statistics on teen pregnancy. Contraception use is actually pretty high. To say they "all too often aren't used" is an overstatement. According the the link, about 90% of sexually active teens use contraception. Comparing that to the percentage of teens who get preganant (about 7%), there seems to be a pretty obvious trend there.

A couple of things that report didn't touch on that I also wonder about include what percentage of teens got pregnant while still in high school. To me, there is a big difference between the girls that get preganant from the 15-17 age group, than those who get pregnant in the 18-19 age group. Presumably, all of the 15-17 year olds are still in high school, and are unmarried. With the 18-19 year olds, I'd imagine at least some of them are already married.

I was unable to find out any good statistics for pre-marital pregnancies. The only studies I found focused on those women who decided to get married after they got pregnant, which is the exact opposite group we're interested in if we're talking about single parents.

The one part where I do agree is the STDs. A disproportionately high percentage of sexually active teens have STDs. The numbers aren't huge - for teens or non-teens - but they are considerably higher in teens than the rest of the sexually active population.

Or at least wiser than the dumbest 10% who don't use contraception. For 90% of the population, pre-marital sex is not causing harm to society.

 

My guess is that either Alcohol or Drugs were part of the equation when impregnated in most cases of unintentional pregancies. You don't have to be dumb to have one to many and have an "oopsie". Or your partner(the male) can be the issue, premature-ej*** for example.

 

Quick, Dr. Phil!

Dr. Phil:

"It's like my Daddy used to say, Don't let the rooster in the hen house unless you want Levi Johnston cookin' your meat."

 

OK, perhaps not dumb, just irresponsible or judgement-impaired is sufficient.

If that's the case he should be suiting up before he goes anywhere near there.

 

Or cheap, or lazy, or careless, or arrogant, or drunk, or high, or inconsiderate, or whatever else. No, I don't think that's the difference. I think the difference is that you're thinking of people like you and me, whereas I'm thinking of average joe out there. Remember, average joe is the guy who used his lawnmower to trim hedges and lost fingers, the guy who thinks the smell of gasoline in his basement isn't a problem, the guy who rents a backhoe to put in his own in-ground pool (cringe) and severs his water main, sewage main, and any underground powerlines he has. Average joe (and jane, to be fair) are, by definition, the statistically most likely group to not think for the simple reason that there are so many reasons people don't think, and Mr. & Ms. Average catch them all.

All too often is a relative term. I consider 10% to be all too often. I also think they're lying, both because self-reporting surveys often do and because I don't think the statistical odds of a woman getting pregnant from unprotected sex are 70%. Of course, there's a difference between the odds of a single event pregnancy and the odds of pregnancy from an ongoing relationship.

I'd actually guess the rates are similar between the two groups. Remember, the average age of first marriage has been pushed back significantly. If I hear of people getting married at 18-19, I jump to two conclusions: 1.) odds are she was pregnant already and 2.) either one or both of the kids aren't going to college (assuming both are the same age). Both of those are assumptions, of course.

This is likely due to the development of contraceptives other than condoms. The pill may protect from pregnancy, but not from syphilis, and teens don't always think about those things. Add that oral sex can still transmit most STDs, but is 'risk free' where pregnancy is concerned (and kids know it), and the difference between STD levels and teen pregnancy levels don't surprise me.

The STD statistics seem to indicate they are.

 

That's because teenage boys are morons and rush things. As an example: Young stud is now excited and is ready to plant his seed in little miss muffin. He quickly rips out the condom and tries to put it on, but the studly moron has it upside down. So he simply takes the thing off and turns it around -- shazam, he's just saved the cost of a condom (instead of throwing it away like he should have) and deposited a little of his seed and a lot of a bacteria on the outside of the condom. Poor little miss muffin.

Add to that the issue of foreplay (where the two young idiots rub their unprotected genitals together) and you really have the makings of an STD encounter of the painful kind.

 

90% of teens use some form of contraception. 93% of girls don't get pregnant as teens. We may be defining average differently... How smart do you have to be to put a condom on? For example:

None of those examples are indicative of people I would describe as "average". That's not "Average Joe", that's "Dumbass Joe".

Did you read through the link? I don't remember the exact percentage, but it was about 90% of teens reported that their sexual encounters were with long-term girl/boyfriends, fiances, or spouses. It doesn't sound like most of these instances are the result of getting drunk at a party.

You are correct, the odds of a woman getting pregnant by having unprotected sex once are not 70%. However, the survey followed these teens for several years, and the article never suggested that each teen only had sex once. In fact, seeing as how the statistic referred to "sexually active" teens, it suggests that we aren't talking about a one-time event. The article also reported that sexually active teens who regularly/always had unprotected sex had a pregnancy rate of 90% over the course of a year. That is pretty close to the 87% pregnancy rate of women in their 20s and 30s who are sexually active and having unprotected sex over the course of a year.

I'd assume the same thing. I grew up in a very blue-collar area, and while situation 1) was not particularly common (in my high school class we had two girls out of over 200 that got pregnant - total class size was 453, so I assume about half were girls), but situation 2) was much more common. (It wasn't like 50% of the graduating class or anything like that, but there were probably about a dozen or so marriages within a year after high school, many of whom were marrying their high school sweethearts.) When a good chunk of the people you graduate with are going to work in a factory, this happens.

I agree with this.

LMAO. Of course they know it - it's a master of the obvious comment. I'd have to think the number of teens who think you can get pregnant by giving a guy a blowjob is pretty darn small.

 

My, my, while that's nice and all, meet the average Joe you just described:

So while the "average Joe" may be all the things you describe in such detail, remember that this was the immediate family of a Vice Presidential candidate of these United States, not just the guy "trimming your hedges." And I bet you voted for her too.

To me, it didn't mean a damn thing. I don't think a person's sex life has a bearing on anything important outside of the dynamics of the relationship in question. In other words, it's nobody's business, whether the hillbillies are from Wheeling or Wasilla.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/10/sarah-palin-levi-would-ha_n_185822.html

 

Actually, the people that do such things are surprisingly normal. One stupid incident is all it takes, but we've all had our few stupid moments. Just be glad they weren't catestrophic stupid moments.

Actually, no, I didn't. I just looked at the statistics. That does make it sound much more reasonable.

The point, though, is how many of them know (or, rather, bother to think) that you can still get STDs from them.

Politics aside, when it comes to smarts, yes, they're in with Mr. & Ms. Average. Financially they're not, but when did finances and smarts have anything to do with each other?

And, yes, I think Idiocracy portrays my point rather well. I don't think it's a sustainable system, but the point is the same.

 

Thanks, I knew you would like it. Your post made me think of it.