So... what about those deaths imposed on deer by wolves?
Or are humans simply no longer considered a part of nature?
Apparently, the brutal way that animals in the wild eat other animals recently came to PETA's attention. They are planning an information and education campaign targetting, initially, wolves and foxes, but eventually moving on to other carnivores. 'We have an obligation to teach these animals that there is a different way' is the underlying focus of the campaign. Whether to include insectivores is apparently causing divisions within PETA, with some advocating a MAPT (Mosquitos are People Too) philosophy and others continuing to swat at flies.
So... what about those deaths imposed on deer by wolves?
Or are humans simply no longer considered a part of nature?
A Wolf doesn't have guns, cars, harmful pollution..etc.
refer back to my post before jumping to conclusions
Quote:
originally posted by wrong robot
there is nothing natural about the deaths they are against
The specific deaths(and abuse) PETA campaigns against more than anything else is the factory farm style abuse of animals for food and clothing. Do you consider that natural?
However, there is another part in your post that I would more or less agree with. humanity is a part of nature yes, but we have superseded the food chain and much of natural selection. how? technology. we possess the ability to make virtually anything to compensate for any evolutionary limitations we have. Additionally, we have the ability to secure food sources pretty much indefinitely. Additionally we have the ability to prevent 'weak links' from dying off, through medical technology.
there are parts of nature we have sort of stepped out of but not really, and we never really will, even with all our technological advancements, unless we were to convert energy into matter, we would always be ultimately held back by the laws of nature, finite resources can and will run out, hurricanes can and will destroy towns, global warming can and will happen...etc. that type of stuff we're not above.
The specific deaths(and abuse) PETA campaigns against more than anything else is the factory farm style abuse of animals for food and clothing. Do you consider that natural?
However, there is another part in your post that I would more or less agree with. humanity is a part of nature yes, but we have superseded the food chain and much of natural selection. how? technology. we possess the ability to make virtually anything to compensate for any evolutionary limitations we have. Additionally, we have the ability to secure food sources pretty much indefinitely. Additionally we have the ability to prevent 'weak links' from dying off, through medical technology.
dig?
We definitely agree on that latter end of your post, 100%. As a species, we're screwed.
However... a wolf has teeth, we have a brain and tool-using ability. Both are natural traits. We can produce those indefinite food sources *without* resorting to cruelty to the animals, so saying that our production of systems for food production is unnatural is, IMHO, a silly conclusion to jump to.
Natural/unnatural has never been the issue. The issue is: does producing illogical and irrational statements and taking irrational and overblown positions do anything other than polarize a population when what you want is consensus? No.
PETA's methods aren't any better than the ipodbatteriessuck paint taggers, IMO. They drive off more supporters than they gain, and the more the mainstream population shifts towards their extreme viewpoint *from other pressures*, the more that will happen. Eventually they're just going to be a tiny little voice screaming in the wilderness for nothing, while the rest of society smiles politely at them and ignores them. *shrug*
In my opinion, they're inconsequential in the long run, so any resources/media/time they get now is just a waste. The only people they're going to sway are those looking for the next extreme cause to throw their psyches behind, and I have as much respect for those folks as I do the screamin' fundies. Same psychological makeup, as far as I can see.
The rest of us can work towards real honest to goodness long term viable change in the meantime.
this is true, Activists that are dumb, give a bad name for the people that actually care, Making the people who actually care, and would be smart enough to actually see their cause through and get something done, look dumb because they are grouped into the same group as the dumb activists by the media, or word of mouth or whatever.
which is kind of lame how that happens, because it leads people to not think for themselves on issues they just equate X issue with Y group of people, where Y=dumb, so X must be dumb too.
No matter how poor the quality, and no matter how much the individual may wish otherwise. Gotta love those morals.
Not saying that's your point, necessarily, (you'll have to actively grab that mantle yourself) but we treat our pets better than we do our elderly. Something is just not right about that.
.
Yeah, I don't particularly value all life equally, but some people do, and as noble as it sounds on the surface, it's really kind of self defeating for what you mentioned, where death is a part of life. It's very true, and cyclical in nature. What I see however, is that humanity, with it's ability to get around the food chain and many constrains of natural selection, we don't necessarily stop all natural cycles, but we certainly elongate them and/or change them substantially, while some, we just out right defeat.
When you look at a thriving ecosystem, and you see the diversity, and how everything interacts and the whole thing is self sustaining, and it all works, then compare that to humans who seek out to partition land around for specific uses, plant trees for aesthetics over function, inhabit all corners of the world, cover the land in asphalt and other plant suppressants,..etc.
Now, it's one thing to do all this, but that much of humanity's greatest developments were reliant on finite resources, with no reciprocity towards nature. That's something else entirely, and that's what we have/are/and will be doing until the resources run out.
Just so everyone knows, and I think most people *do* know this, PETA is run by utter crackpots and strives to have the most outlandish views on all animal-related issues. That's their deal.
So, just as you don't go to the Raelians for good science, don't expect moderation or sense from PETA.
It's not just the Constitution, it's proper anti-alien-incursion preparation!
So then I guess it wouldn't be ok for them to attack and kill humans for whatever their ( " cold and calculating " ) reason would be? From an objective viewpoint of course.
Just hypothetical and just testing the logic here of course.
To be honest I'm a big supporter of animal rights. I don't really know how I feel about PETA. However I've heard some questionable things about them ( going too far ) in the past.
One thing I'm sure of and that is humans have had a terrible disregard for their treatment of animals in the past. And I've read about ( and seen ) this mistreatment many times.
The way they often justify this way of thinking is by saying we are the superior species therefore we are entitled to decide their fate no matter what.
I just thought I would turn that around a bit in a situation that isn't entirely impossible.
I'm not saying everybody should go out and eat a tofu burger but spraying hairspray in a bunny's eyes just so they can test the effects is pretty bad. There are other ways to get the information for this kind of stuff now days. Also the lives of some farm animals bears little resemblance to a person's image of farm life and it's course to the dinner table.
Comments
Originally posted by Kickaha
Sooooo, the entire point of activism is to be an asshole, instead of producing rational, solid arguments and positions?
There's no discourse here, just an asinine comparison.
I guess they're successful activists.
However, all they've done in my book is put themselves firmly in the "Cranks - Ignore" column, along with the other tinfoil hat people.
You must be an activist too then, with such insightful comments.
Originally posted by Kickaha
So... what about those deaths imposed on deer by wolves?
Or are humans simply no longer considered a part of nature?
Apparently, the brutal way that animals in the wild eat other animals recently came to PETA's attention. They are planning an information and education campaign targetting, initially, wolves and foxes, but eventually moving on to other carnivores. 'We have an obligation to teach these animals that there is a different way' is the underlying focus of the campaign. Whether to include insectivores is apparently causing divisions within PETA, with some advocating a MAPT (Mosquitos are People Too) philosophy and others continuing to swat at flies.
Beautiful!
Originally posted by Kickaha
Frankly, all they've done is make me want to eat more meat just to piss them off.
That's not what PETA's about.
It's not about simply cause->effect, there is a strategy, and that strategy actually works.
Understanding what they are doing doesn't require agreeing with it.
Originally posted by Kickaha
So... what about those deaths imposed on deer by wolves?
Or are humans simply no longer considered a part of nature?
So according to that logic it would be ok for a hypothetical superior race from another planet to come down and thin our herd wouldn't it?
Originally posted by Kickaha
So... what about those deaths imposed on deer by wolves?
Or are humans simply no longer considered a part of nature?
A Wolf doesn't have guns, cars, harmful pollution..etc.
refer back to my post before jumping to conclusions
originally posted by wrong robot
there is nothing natural about the deaths they are against
The specific deaths(and abuse) PETA campaigns against more than anything else is the factory farm style abuse of animals for food and clothing. Do you consider that natural?
However, there is another part in your post that I would more or less agree with. humanity is a part of nature yes, but we have superseded the food chain and much of natural selection. how? technology. we possess the ability to make virtually anything to compensate for any evolutionary limitations we have. Additionally, we have the ability to secure food sources pretty much indefinitely. Additionally we have the ability to prevent 'weak links' from dying off, through medical technology.
there are parts of nature we have sort of stepped out of but not really, and we never really will, even with all our technological advancements, unless we were to convert energy into matter, we would always be ultimately held back by the laws of nature, finite resources can and will run out, hurricanes can and will destroy towns, global warming can and will happen...etc. that type of stuff we're not above.
dig?
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
The specific deaths(and abuse) PETA campaigns against more than anything else is the factory farm style abuse of animals for food and clothing. Do you consider that natural?
However, there is another part in your post that I would more or less agree with. humanity is a part of nature yes, but we have superseded the food chain and much of natural selection. how? technology. we possess the ability to make virtually anything to compensate for any evolutionary limitations we have. Additionally, we have the ability to secure food sources pretty much indefinitely. Additionally we have the ability to prevent 'weak links' from dying off, through medical technology.
dig?
We definitely agree on that latter end of your post, 100%. As a species, we're screwed.
However... a wolf has teeth, we have a brain and tool-using ability. Both are natural traits. We can produce those indefinite food sources *without* resorting to cruelty to the animals, so saying that our production of systems for food production is unnatural is, IMHO, a silly conclusion to jump to.
Natural/unnatural has never been the issue. The issue is: does producing illogical and irrational statements and taking irrational and overblown positions do anything other than polarize a population when what you want is consensus? No.
PETA's methods aren't any better than the ipodbatteriessuck paint taggers, IMO. They drive off more supporters than they gain, and the more the mainstream population shifts towards their extreme viewpoint *from other pressures*, the more that will happen. Eventually they're just going to be a tiny little voice screaming in the wilderness for nothing, while the rest of society smiles politely at them and ignores them. *shrug*
In my opinion, they're inconsequential in the long run, so any resources/media/time they get now is just a waste. The only people they're going to sway are those looking for the next extreme cause to throw their psyches behind, and I have as much respect for those folks as I do the screamin' fundies. Same psychological makeup, as far as I can see.
The rest of us can work towards real honest to goodness long term viable change in the meantime.
which is kind of lame how that happens, because it leads people to not think for themselves on issues they just equate X issue with Y group of people, where Y=dumb, so X must be dumb too.
100% exactly.
During the WTO riots in Seattle, there were some groups there that had *good solid points*, and you know what? I wanted to hear them.
Did they get any media time? Oh heck no.
So what did the rioters *REALLY* accomplish? Nothing. Meanwhile, the people with the chance to invoke real change were drowned out.
Sad.
Originally posted by Kickaha
No matter how poor the quality, and no matter how much the individual may wish otherwise. Gotta love those morals.
Not saying that's your point, necessarily, (you'll have to actively grab that mantle yourself) but we treat our pets better than we do our elderly. Something is just not right about that.
.
Yeah, I don't particularly value all life equally, but some people do, and as noble as it sounds on the surface, it's really kind of self defeating for what you mentioned, where death is a part of life. It's very true, and cyclical in nature. What I see however, is that humanity, with it's ability to get around the food chain and many constrains of natural selection, we don't necessarily stop all natural cycles, but we certainly elongate them and/or change them substantially, while some, we just out right defeat.
When you look at a thriving ecosystem, and you see the diversity, and how everything interacts and the whole thing is self sustaining, and it all works, then compare that to humans who seek out to partition land around for specific uses, plant trees for aesthetics over function, inhabit all corners of the world, cover the land in asphalt and other plant suppressants,..etc.
Now, it's one thing to do all this, but that much of humanity's greatest developments were reliant on finite resources, with no reciprocity towards nature. That's something else entirely, and that's what we have/are/and will be doing until the resources run out.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Exactly.
100% exactly.
During the WTO riots in Seattle, there were some groups there that had *good solid points*, and you know what? I wanted to hear them.
Did they get any media time? Oh heck no.
So what did the rioters *REALLY* accomplish? Nothing. Meanwhile, the people with the chance to invoke real change were drowned out.
Sad.
Yeah, it's not unlike a lot of things we see in today's world, politics, world affairs, mob mentality and all that.
the signal-to-noise ratio is like 1:1000
Originally posted by Kickaha
Hey, this herd could *use* some thinning. Survival of the fittest and all that.
I'd bet you'd be up in arms when you saw the first skyscraper go.I doubt they'd be discriminating.
It's not just the Constitution, it's proper anti-alien-incursion preparation!
So, just as you don't go to the Raelians for good science, don't expect moderation or sense from PETA.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Arms? You bet. As in right to bear.
It's not just the Constitution, it's proper anti-alien-incursion preparation!
So then I guess it wouldn't be ok for them to attack and kill humans for whatever their ( " cold and calculating " ) reason would be? From an objective viewpoint of course.
Just hypothetical and just testing the logic here of course.
To be honest I'm a big supporter of animal rights. I don't really know how I feel about PETA. However I've heard some questionable things about them ( going too far ) in the past.
One thing I'm sure of and that is humans have had a terrible disregard for their treatment of animals in the past. And I've read about ( and seen ) this mistreatment many times.
The way they often justify this way of thinking is by saying we are the superior species therefore we are entitled to decide their fate no matter what.
I just thought I would turn that around a bit in a situation that isn't entirely impossible.
I'm not saying everybody should go out and eat a tofu burger but spraying hairspray in a bunny's eyes just so they can test the effects is pretty bad. There are other ways to get the information for this kind of stuff now days. Also the lives of some farm animals bears little resemblance to a person's image of farm life and it's course to the dinner table.
Well, actually, I'd be against it on the grounds that it's polluting an established ecosystem with an external species.