So read a post today that makes me furious. I will post link. fair warning its not pretty nor is it something for tender hearted people. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-j-winograd/peta-kills-puppies-...

 What are your views on animal rights groups and their responsibility to life and health of animals? What do you think should be done in regards to such things? 

Tags: animals, corporate, humanity, killing, lies, rights, senseless

Views: 447

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

PETA is almost like religion. They claim the moral high-ground while they secretly fuck choirboys, or in this case, kill animals.

I don't think I've ever defended PETA before, but the author of that article seems equally whacko (and likely unfair) in his bias.

The figure given for PETA euthanizations is almost 2,000/year.  I didn't look up nationwide statistics, but quickly found:

  • A HuffPo article with (what looks like) PETA's response
  • A HuffPo article citing the number of animals euthanized in South Florida animal shelters alone (100,000/year)

"Combined animals also euthanized in Broward County, Palm Beach County, and Monroe County, South Florida's animal shelters are killing over 100,000 animals yearly for the sole reason that there are simply too many to keep alive."

I think PETA = Whacko, so you shouldn't trust that statistic, either. But I still trust that they sincerely believe in animal welfare. (Personally on that welfare scale, I'm against fur, but for limited animal research.)

Both sides need more perspective.

but the author of that article seems equally whacko (and likely unfair) in his bias.

I had the same impression, though I think the larger portion of it is that he can't still his passions long enough to present facts without unnecessary emotional content. I don't think that sort of passion is such a bad quality in a human, but it makes it harder harder as a reader to weed out facts from sensationalism. The fact that he cites himself more than once in the article is also a bit confusing.

The report from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services at least seems credible, and the overall case seems plausible, but what a mess of an article.

I'm all for laws prohibiting 'cruelty to animals' - but PETA is nucking futs!  Their goal is the 'absolute liberty' of all animals - so, in essence, they are even against the keeping of pets.  I think that is the secret of their success, though - fundamentalism of any kind is far easier to promote than any balanced view.

Their premises are consistent.

If you believe animals have rights just like people do, PETA is the group that practices this consistently.  If you don't like what you are seeing out of them... check your premises.  Maybe animals do not in fact have rights.

Right, let's all defy nature and become vegans.

Or we can just accept that neither animals nor humans have rights and killing each other for fun, food and fur is normal.

There are only two kinds of rights, legislated and imaginary (the latter includes so called innate or natural rights). Obviously dogs, cats, and lizards can't legislate for themselves, so if you want animals to have rights, pass the legislation.

But if you're going to support the idea that animals have rights, be consistent and ban owning pets, because on the view that animals have whatever rights you ascribe to humans, owning a pet makes you a slave owner.

Though we've argued in the past over the "natural rights" issue, I agree with you 100 percent in your identification of the consequences of the idea that animals have rights. 

It's the same consequence that followed from the idea that people have them.

PETA's position is the logical consequence of the premise and in my opinion stand as a reductio ad absurdum argument against it.

There are only two kinds of rights, legislated and imaginary

I think the word "imaginary" sounds too irrelevant in a broader, human context, unless your main point is about irrelevant they are to you, personally.

I'd also bet that most reasoning for banning pets would sound just as absurd as reasoning for banning children.

But I'm ready to be corrected.

:)

I don't think there's a non-sophistical way to argue that rights can be "natural." They are rather something gained through political struggle resulting in enforceable legislation.

I don't know about that. Just because you believe animals have "rights", that doesn't say explicitly which rights you think animals have, right?

When we legislate rights for humans, we don't just pass a law that says "All people have rights," we list them: Americans have the right to free speech, to freedom of religion, right to bear arms, right to a trial, etc. Some countries have the right to free speech, but less of a right to guns than in the U.S. Some countries have more rights as far as drugs than the U.S. And, rights only apply under certain circumstances; if you are a convicted criminal, some of your rights are taken away by the law.

PETA is ridiculous. But I'd always thought that you could argue that animals have some rights without putting them as equal to people. Am I just missing something here? I think it's mostly your terminology that confuses me.

So it seems you, like me, believe that real rights are legislated. The rest are imaginary.

RSS

  

Blog Posts

People

Posted by ɐuɐz ǝllǝıuɐp on July 28, 2014 at 10:27pm 1 Comment

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service