Peta does it again

[Nike Zeus]

So... because they do some wrong, they cannot advocate any moral change whatsoever?

If I've jaywalked before, can I still say mass murder is wrong? I realize there is a difference in degree between this example and the PETA example, but the basic structure of your reasoning is the same (i.e. bad).

No I'm saying you can't say killing twenty people is wrong but killing one is okay.
You can say that you are less of a murderer, but can't claim not to have blood on your hands.

 

[Bugfatty300]

They got your attention, didn't they? Terrorist shmerorist who has PETA killed?

It got people's attention in a very negative way which made people focus on PETA and not their message.

If all these PETA advertisements and statements cause people to hate PETA instead of hating animal abusers then PETA is doing something very wrong, wouldn't you agree?

 

[m4gill4]

I just don't think that the vast majority in this day and age are ready to own up to the reality of what their lifestyle really is.

Quoted for truth

If all these PETA advertisements and statements cause people to hate PETA instead of hating animal abusers then PETA is doing something very wrong, wouldn't you agree?

No. Like I said above, whenever they use tactics that aren't sensationalistic or controversial, they are completely ignored. If PETA being demonized and looking like buttholes is what it takes to get people thinking about this, then maybe they are willing to bear that.

 

[El_Machinae]

No, there is no argument to be made. It is perfectly moral to eat meat. To not eat meat is not morally superior. To claim otherwise is simply in error and I dismiss any such claim out of hand. I cannot state it any plainer than that.

I agree that it's amoral to eat meat (I think that's the word you're looking for). But can we also agree that it's possible to gain that meat in moral and immoral ways?

 

[Fifty]

No I'm saying you can't say killing twenty people is wrong but killing one is okay.

Sure you can! What if shifting to everyone-makes-their-own-food-style is economically untenable, but shifting to general vegetarianism is economically viable (in fact it would probably be hugely beneficial for land and water usage, world hunger, etc.)?

Even if you're just talking about what they personally do (rather than what they advocate), why can't they take the moral high ground over meat-eaters if they are killing radically less animals through their practices? I mean, at the very least we can say that their behavior is morally preferable, even if it isn't maximally moral.

 

[Bugfatty300]

No. Like I said above, whenever they use tactics that aren't sensationalistic or controversial, they are completely ignored.

So they have to behave like children to get attention?

If PETA being demonized and looking like buttholes is what it takes to get people thinking about this, then maybe they are willing to bear that.

The problem is that it doesn't make people think. It makes them angry...at PETA and not at meat packers or whatever. It puts ALL the light and attention on PETA! You don't see that as bad PR tactics?

Is it great for getting website hits? I bet so. Is it great for raising awareness of animal rights and abuse? Nope.

 

[bhsup]

Not all of the members are as extreme as the ones who cross the line. Can you find an official statement stating that PETA supports either ALF or ELF?

"PETA’s connections to ALF and ELF are indisputable. “We did it, we did it. We gave $1,500 to the ELF for a specific program,” PETA’s Lisa Lange admitted on the Fox News Channel. PETA has offered no fewer than eight different explanations of what the “specific program” was, but law enforcement leaders have noted that since the Earth Liberation Front is a criminal enterprise, it has absolutely no legal “programs” of any kind."

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_blackeye.cfm/oid/21

I know, dubious link, but that's what I found on a quick search.

I agree that it's amoral to eat meat (I think that's the word you're looking for). But can we also agree that it's possible to gain that meat in moral and immoral ways?

Yeah, I could agree with that.

 

[Trajan12]

So they have to behave like children to get attention?

Wouldn't that be more of a poor reflection on Society rather than on PETA?

 

[El_Machinae]

"PETA’s connections to ALF and ELF are indisputable. “We did it, we did it. We gave $1,500 to the ELF for a specific program,” PETA’s Lisa Lange admitted on the Fox News Channel. PETA has offered no fewer than eight different explanations of what the “specific program” was, but law enforcement leaders have noted that since the Earth Liberation Front is a criminal enterprise, it has absolutely no legal “programs” of any kind."

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_blackeye.cfm/oid/21

Yeah. PETA's FAQ doesn't denounce ELF as much as they should, either. Technically, either ALF or ELF* do not advocate the harming of humans (even for the greater good), but they still conduct vandalism where vandalism isn't the best option.

*I can't remember which

Yeah, I could agree with that.

Then it's mostly a matter of examining if one's meat was gained in an immoral or moral way.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Wouldn't that be more of a poor reflection on Society rather than on PETA?

No. My point was that they don't have to behave like 5-year-olds to get their message out. It's not as if society is more apathetic towards the abuse of animals than any other controversial issue.

 

[Trajan12]

No. My point was that they don't have to behave like 5-year-olds to get their message out. It's not as if society is more apathetic towards the abuse of animals than any other controversial issue.

Not so. There's been a lot of attention given to things like conflict diamonds, and Fair Trade, but let's face it: No one would ever hear anything about Animal Rights were it not in some news story denigrating PETA for its tactics.

No matter which way you cut it, it's a poor reflection on society's apathy toward human barbarism.

 

[Abaddon]

Is it bad to eat supporters of Peta

 

[mangxema]

I would suggest we eat some PETA members to scare and shut the other ones up, but I highly doubt they taste good (even with BBQ sauce). Also, we probably wouldn't get much protein.

I don't know.... vegetarians are delicious...


The problem I have with PETA is not their ideas exactly, it's that they go about promoting them in the dumbest way possible. (They're like the ACLU, really.) For example, with the Batman movie thing... that guy is upset because Batman punched a dog who was attacking him. He could have complained about the abundant senseless violence, blowing up cars and what not; he could have decried the fact that the dog was [presumably] trained as an attack dog in the first place; but no, he took Batman to task for roughing the dog up a bit. I mean, really? Peanut butter treats? I know he's a superhero and all, but he can only carry so much on his belt...

 

[Loki130]

No matter which way you cut it, it's a poor reflection on society's apathy toward human barbarism.

Humans are always barbaric, that's nothing new. We are a horrible species, life brings out the worst in everyone. As soon as we accept that we can start working on it. (though with very little chance of actual success)

 

[m4gill4]

So they have to behave like children to get attention?

The problem is that it doesn't make people think. It makes them angry...at PETA and not at meat packers or whatever. It puts ALL the light and attention on PETA! You don't see that as bad PR tactics?

Is it great for getting website hits? I bet so. Is it great for raising awareness of animal rights and abuse? Nope.

If it wasn't for PETA, you would have probably never heard of the term "animal rights". Love them or hate them, they have successfully gotten their issue into the public consciousness. Love them or hate them, their controversial tactics have been 100% successful, while their conventional PR is routinely ignored by everyone. It doesn't matter if you like PETA or not. If you have ever considered the suffering of your hamburger, or engaged in a discussion like this one (including this one) then PETA's ad campaign worked on you.

The problem I have with PETA is not their ideas exactly, it's that they go about promoting them in the dumbest way possible. (They're like the ACLU, really.)

If you thought I was sanctimonious in defending PETA, then you definitely don't want to start trashing the ACLU. I don't even really care about PETA that much, they kinda are a bit thuggish, but the ACLU on the other hand gets me all teary eyed...

 

[innonimatu]

Argument from etymology is about as bad as an argument from religion.

I disagree, but refuse do change subject to discuss this.

Still, his larger point stands. Why should mere normality engender rightness? "Lots of people do it, therefore it is ok" has never been a good argument.

What larger point? He simply asserted that not making animals suffer was more ethical. Ethics are a matter of belief, and "lots of people" carry a lot of weight there. Enough weight to crush any philosopher that disagrees, regardless of the intellectual value of his arguments.

Its not that we have the right to force change, its that, in theory, we have an obligation to do so. What if some culture customarily tortures people with brown eyes? If we can stop it, why not? I'm sorry, but no phony allegiance to tolerance and multiculturalism trumps serious unethical behavior.

Now this is an interesting discussion! We have an obligation? Why?

You believe your ethics are superior to their ethics? Why?
You'll soon be saying it's the "white man's burden"...

And by what means would you force change upon the hypothetical torturers-of-people-with-brown-eyes? What would you do if they resisted simple attempts at persuasion?
I guess you'd have to stop pretending to be ethical superior and simply use force to crush them, as we civilized europeans did to so many small tribes of savage cannibals...
Yeah, we're culturally superior - not because of our behavior, but because we have the better weapons!
Just spare me the moral lectures then.

Is it just the authoritarian nature of their beliefs that piss you off?

The fact that they believe they are morally better, that they hold the moral high ground and everyone else must do as they say. Now that may not be authoritarian, so long as they don't actively force their beliefs on others, but it's irritating nonetheless.
And they do try to force their morals upon others. They lobby for laws outlawing what they consider "mistreatment" of animals (and that can vary). There should be no surprise that other will lobby against them. Action - reaction...

How do you feel about the arguments for ethical vegetarianism in general?

I've never protested against, or tried to hinder in any way, vegetarians.

The irony of this part is hilarious.

Action - reaction... I will campaign against those who campaign against my beliefs. And I never said they were not free to promote their ideas. Only that I despise them.

 

[SirLamphead]

PETA, Obamaniacs, and Evangelicals seem to fit in the same catagory no?
There are radicals for everything.

 

[Nike Zeus]

Sure you can! What if shifting to everyone-makes-their-own-food-style is economically untenable, but shifting to general vegetarianism is economically viable (in fact it would probably be hugely beneficial for land and water usage, world hunger, etc.)?

This is an economic argument in favor of vegetarianism, not a moral one. I agree there are valid arguments for such a shift to general vegetarianism.

Even if you're just talking about what they personally do (rather than what they advocate), why can't they take the moral high ground over meat-eaters if they are killing radically less animals through their practices? I mean, at the very least we can say that their behavior is morally preferable, even if it isn't maximally moral.

My post was in response to someone claiming that the vegans' choice meant no animals were killed. If you were given the choice between killing one person and killing twenty, then the morally preferable choice is killing one. But if you have the option, as in real life, of not committing a single murder, that becomes the only morally acceptable choice. The fact that vegans choose murder for convenience, and see no wrong in doing so leaves them with a very weak position. They can either admit that they advocate a morally unacceptable lifestyle (none of them do) or claim that some amount of murder is acceptable (none of them do). Vegans cannot claim to be incrementally better then the rest of us without admitting that they too are willing to trade lives for convenience.

 

[bhsup]

I know he's a superhero and all, but he can only carry so much on his belt...

Actually, in PETA's defense, if Batman can have shark repellent available, surely peanut butter treats shouldn't be too hard.

 

[m4gill4]

@innonomatu

Apparently I'm not in on whatever Fifty found ironic.

I disagree, but refuse do change subject to discuss this.

Convenient.

Now this is an interesting discussion! We have an obligation? Why?

You believe your ethics are superior to their ethics? Why?
You'll soon be saying it's the "white man's burden"...

And by what means would you force change upon the hypothetical torturers-of-people-with-brown-eyes? What would you do if they resisted simple attempts at persuasion?
I guess you'd have to stop pretending to be ethical superior and simply use force to crush them, as we civilized europeans did to so many small tribes of savage cannibals...
Yeah, we're culturally superior - not because of our behavior, but because we have the better weapons!
Just spare me the moral lectures then.

This is all a huge straw man. PETA is not out forcing anyone to do anything. They pull outrageous stunts to bring attention to the plight of animals who would otherwise be roundly ignored. Who is being oppressed? It's not about civilizing the wogs its about bringing attention to the true moral cost of modern society.

They aren't out there saying eskimos can't hunt caribou, they're saying those of us in modern society who have a choice, should be conscious that they have a choice, and that they are making the less ethical choice when they eat meat/use animal products.

The fact that they believe they are morally better, that they hold the moral high ground and everyone else must do as they say. Now that may not be authoritarian, so long as they don't actively force their beliefs on others, but it's irritating nonetheless.
And they do try to force their morals upon others. They lobby for laws outlawing what they consider "mistreatment" of animals (and that can vary). There should be no surprise that other will lobby against them. Action - reaction...

I think you'll find the laws they lobby for are quite reasonable. They do not try to ban meat, only regulate that animals are treated humanely. Why does that bother you more than say exxon lobbying to drill in ANWAR? Or Jordan/Colombia lobbying for better trade deals? If you want a policy, lobby for it. It's democracy.

What are you part of the pro-animal-cruelty lobby or something? Why hate PETA?