Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
PETA Wants You to Empathize with Fish
The President Bush pardoned, not one, but two Thanksgiving turkeys today (and I'm not talking about John Ashcroft and Colin Powell).
But that's not enough for the activists over at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. They want you to empathize with fish. Say it ain't so Mrs. Paul's!
(Thanks for the warning to Pamela Friedman.)
|11.17.04 @ 3:41PM|#
Look at this sentence -
"ANIMAL rights activists are calling for people to stop eating fish
- which would mean the end of one of Britain's favourite dishes
fish and chips."
Do Sun readers actually need the presence of fish in fishand chips
to be explained to them?
|11.17.04 @ 3:44PM|#
joe,
A more interesting question is, are they really eating fish or
merely some devious by-product of soybeans disguised as fish?
:)
Charles Hueter|11.17.04 @ 3:51PM|#
Now I remember what's missing from my fridge! Salmon
steaks!
Thanks, PETA! I've gotten so bored with beef and chicken. Now
there's something new to annoy them.
|11.17.04 @ 3:57PM|#
At least PETA uses female nudity to gain publicity. That's a
spreading trend, so keep trying to get my attention, PETA, et
al!
(I'm thinking for this particular issue, a mermaid with humongous
knockers would do the trick.)
(Come to think of it, we Reasonoids would probably join this trend
if we could find any women.)
|11.17.04 @ 3:57PM|#
LOL Jesse
At first they came for the fish, but I did not speak up because I
only eat chips...
|11.17.04 @ 4:02PM|#
I'm curious, what do libertoids have against PETA?
You don't criticize rabbis when they say individuals should choose
not to eat pigs (or whatever animal) for philosophical
reasons.
Why do you criticize PETA for saying individuals should choose not
to eat pigs (or whatever animal) for different philosophical
reasons?
I don't believe I've ever seen PETA try to mount a campaign to
legally prohibit the eating of anything.
|11.17.04 @ 4:10PM|#
joe:
Apparently you are unaware of their successful campaign to ban foie
grois here in California. (because it's mean to forcefeed the ducks
all that corn)
|11.17.04 @ 4:10PM|#
"No one would ever put a hook through a dog's or cat's
mouth," said Bruce Friedrich of PETA.
No, we'd simply whack them over the head with a club, or shoot them
in the head if they really pissed us off.
"Once people start to understand that fish are just as
intelligent they'll stop eating them."
Maybe he just saw Finding Nemo and thought of it as a
documentary. Or maybe the fish are as intelligent as he is.
|11.17.04 @ 4:26PM|#
Shawn,
This puts me in mind of conversation I overheard at SEA-TAC airport
several months ago. A couple of guys were talking about exotic
delicasies they had enjoyed in the Far East and one of them said he
had eaten dog. I butted in and inquired if it was any good. He said
yes, it was like well cooked pork. I expressed my skepticism that a
full grown hound could be so tender and he replied, "Well, of
course, you don't eat them like that. You gotta get them when
they're only a year or so old."
BTW, the dog eater worked as a Chef on the Alaskan Railroad Coastal
Classic.
|11.17.04 @ 4:28PM|#
joe-
I've got nothing against PETA. I don't quite get their reasoning
that the more intelligent an animal is the less deserving it is to
be dinner. However, I empathize and like animals. So, the more PETA
does to end animal cruelty the better. I eat meat, but I feel much
better when I'm eating things I've killed myself. Factory farm
raised animals are often treated cruelly.
|11.17.04 @ 4:44PM|#
pigwiggle, me too, except I trust the animal care standards of
organic, free range producters as well.
Oh, and I don't shoot things. I'd probably miss, and leave some
poor critter to limp around miserably for a week.
|11.17.04 @ 4:50PM|#
Joe,
I didn't think there was any shortage of criticism of religious
rules on this forum. Perhaps this is more of the same?
|11.17.04 @ 4:53PM|#
And the angel said unto me, "These are the cries of the carrots, the cries of the carrots! You see, Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day and to them it is the holocaust." And I sprang from my slumber drenched in sweat like the tears of one million terrified brothers and roared, "Hear me now, I have seen the light! They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers!"
|11.17.04 @ 4:58PM|#
I can't believe no one took Andy's bait, so:
They're gonna say: IIIITTTT'SSS PEEEOOOOOPPPLEE.....Soylent Green
IS PPPPEEEEEOOOOPPPLLLEEEE!!!!!
|11.17.04 @ 5:02PM|#
PETA advances the cause of humane treatment of animals kind of
like Earth First advances responsible environmentalism.
Don't these people have more important things to worry about...like
say...Internet
hunting?
|11.17.04 @ 5:06PM|#
"No one would ever put a hook through a dog's or cat's
mouth," said Bruce Friedrich of PETA.
Buddy Bruce, obviously, hasn't taken the Good Doctor into
consideration:
http://wolf.ok.ac.kr/~annyg/english/index.html
|11.17.04 @ 5:10PM|#
PETA really annoys me. They act as if all of nature is some
benign thing where the lion doesn't eat the gazelle. All of nature
� beautiful as it is � works in harmony as long as the big fish
eats the little fish. Well guess what? We're the big fish! If they
want to tell me that we need to eat LESS fish, because we're too
successful at catching them, that's a discussion I'm willing to
have. Just stop pretending that the whole system isn't based on
life eating life.
So why do cougars get a right that I don't? They get to eat Bambi
and I want some too!
|11.17.04 @ 5:11PM|#
"Oh, and I don't shoot things. I'd probably miss, and leave some
poor critter to limp around miserably for a week."
The last time I hunted upland birds (pheasant, quail, and so forth)
a coyote followed us for nearly 10 miles. I suppose it had learned
there might be an easy meal to be had from the wounded birds we
couldn't track.
|11.17.04 @ 5:13PM|#
"Will no one speak up for the chips?"
It's been an hour and that's still cracking me up.
|11.17.04 @ 5:18PM|#
You don't criticize rabbis when they say individuals should
choose not to eat pigs (or whatever animal) for philosophical
reasons.
Rabbis don't much care what gentiles eat.
Anyway, PETA opens itself up for extra criticism for the same
reason that the Christian Coalition does -- because it attempts to
force its silly moral system into law.
|11.17.04 @ 5:21PM|#
he last time I hunted upland birds (pheasant, quail, and so
forth) a coyote followed us for nearly 10 miles. I suppose it had
learned there might be an easy meal to be had from the wounded
birds we couldn't track.
pigwiggle, I think the coyote was merely making a guess at your
survival skills.
|11.17.04 @ 5:21PM|#
I'm curious, what do libertoids have against
PETA?
You don't criticize rabbis when they say individuals should
choose not to eat pigs (or whatever animal) for philosophical
reasons.
Why do you criticize PETA for saying individuals should choose
not to eat pigs (or whatever animal) for different philosophical
reasons?
Well, the difference is that the rabbi says something like, "Those
of you who choose to follow the Jewish faith should not eat
pork."
Whereas PETA says something like, "Nobody should eat
animals, because..." and then their reasoning is weak, if not
hilarious.
It's to PETA's credit that they try education and persuasion rather
than political force (except apparently incidents like andy
mentioned; I hadn't heard of that one). But the "a rat is a pig is
a dog is a boy"-type equivalency reasoning strikes most people as
whacky, not just reflexively but even by those who attempt to give
it some serious analysis.
PETA is parading through the Free Market of Ideas with a big KICK
ME sign taped to its butt. And some people can't resist.
|11.17.04 @ 5:35PM|#
They throw blood on people, which is at a minimum uncouth. They
oppose scientific research. What's to like?
Besides, did you see what they did in "28 Days Later"?
|11.17.04 @ 5:50PM|#
Billy J.: "So why do cougars get a right that I don't?"
Because cougars don't have a choice. We do.
|11.17.04 @ 5:56PM|#
for those of us who missed 28 days, yes its on my list, but
haven't got the dvd yet, please fill us in
joe
|11.17.04 @ 5:57PM|#
Joe,
Hunters tend to not like PETA, 'cause PETA doesn't like hunting.
There's one example.
|11.17.04 @ 6:01PM|#
"Hey, Yutz! Guns aren't toys! They're for family protection,
hunting dangerous or delicious animals and keeping the king of
England outta your face!"
Krusty the Clown
|11.17.04 @ 6:11PM|#
I believe in the sanctity of all living things. That's why I eat
beef.
As my jaws come together on that New York Strip, I hear in my mind
the rejoicing of every blade of grass that was not murdered today.
Every dandelion, ever stalk of clover, every green thing whose
bretheren ever lay defenseless beneath the genocidal maw of the
tyrant despot that lays upon my plate. I wipe my lips in righteous
fervor. Let freedom ring!
Besides, it's safer than assault and battery on a foie gras chef. (
http://www.sfexaminer.com/article/index.cfm/i/082703e_unterman -
see third subhead ) Who knows - the chef might carry a gun.
|11.17.04 @ 6:17PM|#
Joe-
I personally hate PETA because, among other things, they insist
that there is NO moral difference between my killing a mouse and
the Nazis murdering Jews, or me eating a hamburger and Jeff Dahmer
eating his rape victims. No matter how mellow I might otherwise be
feeling, if you accuse me of mass murder I'm not likely to have a
hell of a lot of respect for you.
Also, PETA is hypocritical--there's against modern diabetes
treatments, because getting insulin requires hurting animals, but
one of their executives is an insulin-shooting diabetic. You see,
it's okay for HER to benefit from dead animals, because she's so
incredibly fucking important, but non-PETA diabetics all just have
to deal with insulin comas and death, I suppose.
When vegans question my carnivorous morality, I like to irritate
them by saying that I eat animals because they are murderous
bastards who deserve it. How many millions of blades of grass had
to die, so that one methane-farting, global-warming-causing cow
might live? (If you happen to be eating a hamburger, as I was when
having this conversation, it helps if you wave it around for
emphasis.)
But seriously, I'm against the needless torture of animals, and I
think that when animals ARE slaughtered for food it should be done
in a humane manner, but to say that animal and human life are
equivalent is asinine. If animals have rights then they also have
responsibilities. When I can sue a wasp for pain and suffering
after it stings me, and the wasp has to pay up, THEN I'll consider
the possibility that the life of the wasp is in some way equal to
my own.
|11.17.04 @ 6:26PM|#
Vynnie - "...every green thing whose bretheren ever lay
defenseless beneath the genocidal maw of the tyrant despot that
lays upon my plate."
Fucking brilliant! :)
|11.17.04 @ 6:35PM|#
This topic always reminds me of Notting Hill.
Keziah: No thanks, I'm a fruitarian.
Max: I didn't realize that.
William: And, ahm: what exactly is a fruitarian?
Keziah: We believe that fruits and vegetables have feeling so we
think cooking is cruel. We only eat things that have actually
fallen off a tree or bush - that are, in fact, dead already.
William: Right. Right. Interesting stuff. So, these
carrots...
Keziah: Have been murdered, yes.
|11.17.04 @ 6:36PM|#
I always like engaging PETA folks with the question "I guess if
you're against eating beef, you don't mind that there won't be any
cows anymore, right?".
That's usually met with a blank stare, and I can see the wheels
painfully turning....
|11.17.04 @ 6:53PM|#
Mr. Lincoln,
I would. If he was properly prepared in a nice sauce, with some
appropriate side dishes and a nice red wine he might taste
good.
I mean, why not?
|11.17.04 @ 7:00PM|#
Somehow I think there is a qualitative difference between the
life of a blade of grass or, say, a carrot, and the life of a cow.
Anyone who argues thats eating plants is just as brutal as eating
animals is being dense or disingenuous.
Anyone can pick a carrot, but I wonder how many of you proud meat
eaters would be capable of killing and gutting an animal
yourselves.
|11.17.04 @ 7:04PM|#
Andy and Call me snake,
The inevitability of Soylent Green was addressed in a
thought-provoking and very special episode of News
Radio:
Maybe that's my objection to PETA--if victorious, they'll insist
that homo sapiens is the only meat that we can eat. I
suppose I'm mildly sympathetic to the idea of not eating animals
(but I have it in for potatoes), but PETA's rhetoric is just a wee
bit too much.
Here's
Moses/Ben Hur on the nature of Soylent Green.
|11.17.04 @ 7:07PM|#
I agree with you up until the killing and gutting myself part,
chaitanya. If I had to, you better believe I'd blast and clean an
animal.
I eat meat atm, but have been a vegetarian off and on for over 15
years. Whenever I order a hamburger or whatever, I feel 'weird'
about it and it's funny to realise that pretty much nobody else
does, especially the person I order it from. I think that in this
day and age, we're advanced enough to where we don't need to kill
animals to live. But at the same time, I don't think it's immoral
to kill an animal and consume it as long as you don't torture it
first. Which is a big reason I ever dabbled in vegetarianism in the
first place (the inhumane way they raise chickens, cows, etc and
whatnot).
Don't know where I'm going with this, so I leave it there. :)
|11.17.04 @ 7:33PM|#
Lincoln-
I personally would not eat a chimpanzee, or a dolphin or whale, for
that matter, because there is a considerable amount of evidence to
suggest that these animals have a level of intelligence, language
(or the capablity to learn it) and self-awareness. I won't say I
know exactly *where* to draw the line between okay-to-eat and
not-okay-to-eat, but any animal capable of using learned language
to express thoughts (as opposed to the instinctive sounds most
animals make in certain situations) is definitely on the do-not-eat
side of it. Show me even one cow capable of forethought and
abstraction, and I'd stop eating beef and start believing in Cow
Rights.
|11.17.04 @ 7:36PM|#
While I, too, scoff at the silliness of PETA, I do think we ought to consider the implications of animals with more complex neurological systems. It seems that the great apes (with 99% of our DNA) should be considered not equivalent to fish, birds, cows, and pigs. I think that there's a lot of evidence to suggest that apes are operating at toddler level intelligence. And while toddlers are particularly succulent, maybe it's alright to wonder if apes aren't worth a little more consideration than other animals.
|11.17.04 @ 7:42PM|#
Okay the Notting Hill quote forces me to pull out this nugget
from Derek and Clive:
CLIVE:
I'd like to see every endangered species wiped off the fucking face
of the Earth.
DEREK:
Yeah.
CLIVE:
People go, they're all moaning on, they say whales are more
intelligent than human beings.
DEREK:
Yeah.
CLIVE:
Are they? Do you think whales and dolphins are more intelligent
than human beings?
DEREK:
Oh yeah.
CLIVE:
Why?
DEREK:
Says so.
CLIVE:
Yeah, but they're not. Whales are fucking stupid. Can you mention
one whale in the history of mankind that has had a record in the
top ten? Can you? Can you mention one whale who's written the
equivalent of, er, 'Othello', Shakespeare, 'Health &
Efficiency'? They've produced nothing in the way of literature. All
they've fucking produced is a load of other whales and all they eat
is fucking plankton, and they call them intelligent. Can you
imagine drifting along in the sea with your mouth open and a lot of
fucking plankton going in?
DEREK:
Yeah, I can imagine that.
CLIVE:
You'd like it, would you, just drifting around in the sea? And you
can't-, they're such cunts they can't even breathe underwater. They
have to keep coming up the whole fucking time and spouting. Then
some cunt comes on telly and he says, "Oh, the whale is being wiped
out by mankind, save the fucking whales." Well! During the war, did
we notice a lot of whales w-, rallying roundand saying, "Save
England!" I didn't notice many down my part of the world.
|11.17.04 @ 8:37PM|#
chaitanya-
�Somehow I think there is a qualitative difference between the life
of a blade of grass or, say, a carrot, and the life of a
cow.�
The difference being you identify more with the cow, that�s
it.
�Anyone who argues thats eating plants is just as brutal as eating
animals is being dense or disingenuous.�
No, they just disagree with you.
�Anyone can pick a carrot, but I wonder how many of you proud meat
eaters would be capable of killing and gutting an animal
yourselves.�
I agree. Too many people are unwilling to do the dirty work
themselves. Most have no idea what goes into killing and dressing
an animal. It doesn�t always go to plan and can get very messy.
|11.17.04 @ 9:02PM|#
I'm the advance being for a race whose average IQ would be about 2000 on your pitiful scale. Just so you know, any being with an IQ of below 300 is considered dense enough to eat. Passed by edict of the Kulankt conference 187257.938.888.
|11.17.04 @ 9:22PM|#
I have always wondered why it's cool to fish but uncool to cap
Bambi. Score one for PETA, for consistency at least.
But, as a long-time practicing Waterian, I must point out that
carrots scream when the next carrot over gets yanked out by the
roots. And man, the life forms that are killed to plow the fields
for broccoli plantations number in the thousands (thousands of
species, billions of individual victims). Yet, PETA's okay with
plowing under the ground squirrels, gophers, k-rats, and multitudes
of smaller vermin so long as the farmer doesn't plant cows for
tenderloins. Hypocrites, all.
Vegans and Carnivores repent. Move to the higher celestial plane
and join with the Waterians.
|11.17.04 @ 9:23PM|#
I wonder how many of you proud meat eaters would be capable
of killing and gutting an animal yourselves
Ah, the "if it's icky, it must be wrong" school of thought.
There are many things that I would absolutely hate doing, and which
I personally find to be gross, but which are nevertheless perfectly
fine from a moral perspective -- performing surgery, slaughtering
animals, cleaning sewers, having sex with another man, voting for
Ralph Nader, etc.
|11.17.04 @ 9:40PM|#
Piggle, Dude, I am NOT going hunting except at the market. I
leave that to my buddy Keith in Kodiak and my father in law.
Hunting and killing is way to hard. It's messy, difficult, time
consuming, nasty work. Plus Venison just ain't Filet Mignon.
And although I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek about the animals
killed when the fields are plowed, it is a fact of farming. Worse,
it's Ground Squirrel Buchenwald when a virgin field is plowed and
there's also plenty of carnage in a field that's been fallow for a
few years as well.
|11.17.04 @ 9:48PM|#
Why I like PETA:
"It would be a great thing if all of these fast-food outlets, these
slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them
exploded tomorrow... Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do
it." - PETA Campaign Director Bruce Friedrich, July 2, 2001
"Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be
against it."-Ingrid Newkirk, President & Co-Founder of PETA
|11.17.04 @ 10:14PM|#
pigwiggle, the "it's all just your opinion" dodge doesn't hold
up to scrutiny.
A mammal can experience pain and terror. A carrot cannot. That's
not my opinion, that's demonstrable fact.
If you want to argue that the reaction of a mammal to massive
physical insult or impending death - the fear, pain, and struggle -
amounts only to biochemical reactions with no moral significance,
then why should I consider you or your mom's fear, pain and
struggle to have any moral significance?
|11.17.04 @ 10:34PM|#
...and you'd better come up with something more substantive than some watered down Genesis "image of God" shit.
|11.17.04 @ 10:58PM|#
I've worked with people associated with PETA doing charity work
for dog shelters, etc. Even the people I talked to who are
affiliated with PETA think the things PETA does and says are
outrageous. They say PETA makes these outrageous statements because
they know that the more outrageous a statement is the more press it
will get, and getting the message out is what it's all about.
A couple of years ago, PETA filed a false advertising suit against
the California Dairy Association for their "Good Cheese Comes from
Happy Cows and Happy Cows Come From California" campaign, alleging
that there's no way the Dairy Association could prove that
California's cows are particularly happy. None of the PETA people I
talked to thought PETA had a real suit; they just wanted everyone
who saw the press it generated to think about the conditions in
which we keep dairy cows.
Similarly, I've seen PETA members make fun of PETA for going into
drought areas where people were starving to death and promoting
vegetarianism in the hope of saving local wildlife. Once again, to
the people I talked to, being covered by the press is the meaning
of activism; people used to laugh at Green Peace, you know.
There's at least two kinds of animal rights activists: the people
who volunteer for dog rescue, many of whom are happy to go out for
burgers at the end of the day, and then there's the hardcore types.
I've heard some hilarious stories about the hardcore types.
No one seems to have commented on my link to the "Good Doctor"
above, but if you go to that site, it's by a South Korean doctor
who calls himself "Dr. Dogmeat." He promotes, you guessed it,
eating dog meat.
The site is complete with cultural history, recipes, and just about
anything you ever wanted to know about eating dog meat. The most
amusing section of the site, I think, is the link titled "Dog Meat
- Eating French." At the top of the page, Dr. Dogmeat relates the
story of a public debate someone of apparent note had with
Bridgette Bardot about eating dog meat.
Apparently, Ms. Bardot said that Koreans who eat dog meat were
barbarians, to which her opponent replied that the French ate dog
meat. Ms. Bardot became indignant, but that's not the point. The
point is: how funny is the debate over eating dog meat? I remember
seeing people from PETA on the local news here in LA, years ago,
publicly telling people not to give or sell puppies to
Koreans.
Seems quite racist, doesn't it? Still, I'd feel funny givin' away a
puppy if...never mind; I'd never have a dog that wasn't fixed
anyway.
P.S. There's something to be said for the argument that so many
people casually abuse animals because so many people are socialized
to think of animals as food.
To PETA people, it's like the old Twilight Zone episode, "To Serve
Man". Dying is dying, really, but there's something particularly
horrifying about being treated as food. It strikes the same
horrifyingly absurd chord with them as when you first heard that
once people were made into lampshades. Anyway, that's the way PETA
people see it.
Like I tell them, when you know you're morally right, it's hard to
remember that the people who disagree with you are the battleground
and not the enemy.
|11.17.04 @ 11:00PM|#
What bugs me about PETA, for the record, is their strident
insistence that if you don't live EXACTLY HOW THEY SAY, you're a
horrible evil person. That, plus their incredible moral blindness
in insisting that "a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" ala Peter
Singer. What just weirds me out is the fact that they seem to have
no concept at all of how bizarre most people find their beliefs. I
know that a lot of people think libertarian ideals are weird;
that's OK. I acknowledge that and try to take it into account, and
I try not to take myself too seriously. PETA folks don't seem to be
aware of all this and have no sense of humor about anything. "When
you lose your ability to laugh, you lose your ability to think
straight", as the man said.
My own half-baked conception on "animal rights" is this: animals
can't conceive of their own morality; this is why it's OK for us to
kill them. They do understand fear and pain (to some limited
degree); this makes it not OK to willfully cause them suffering. I
think that chimpanzees, gorillas, dolphins, and maybe elephants and
some parrots do have a greater understanding of the nature of life
and death than most animals, so I'd be amenable to stronger
protection for them. I realize this is hardly a fully formed
philosophical argument, but I don't intend it to be one - it's just
a gut feeling.
|11.17.04 @ 11:03PM|#
Oh, and I forgot to add, if there are any of you anti-European,
redneck types out there who'd like to know more about the alleged
French consumption of dog meat, here's the link:
http://wolf.ok.ac.kr/~annyg/english/index.html
|11.17.04 @ 11:28PM|#
"And the animals I've trapped
Have all become my pets
And I'm living off of grass
And the drippings from the ceiling
But it's ok to eat fish
Cause they haven't any feelings"
|11.17.04 @ 11:39PM|#
I'll stop eating beef the day a bull stands up and asserts his
right as a sapient being to be left alone. It takes just one. I'll
forego all members of the species if just one individual stakes a
claim to personhood.
Same with pork, chicken, crab...
While we're waiting, anyone want some yummy dolphin/tuna salad?
|11.17.04 @ 11:56PM|#
Why stop at fishes? Consider the barbarous way we imprison
living shellfish and scald them to death in boiling water.
Free the lobsters! Together we can end crustacean captivity in our
lifetime!
|11.18.04 @ 12:12AM|#
I find the arguments here against veganism/animal rights rather
weak. Are the PETA people nutty and "outrageous"? Yeah, that's why
I'm not a member. Frankly, I don't like the way they perpetuate
stereotypes -- about women specifically, Pamela Anderson's ads in
particular -- while railing against authoritarian stereotypes.
Folks I've met from the Libertarian Party (and _Reason_ readers for
that matter) have been not much different on the weirdness
scale.
PETA deserves some respect for raising awareness. Undercover videos
like "Meet your Meat" have been critically important. Wasn't a PETA
hired investigator responsible for exposing one of KFCs' biggest
suppliers for animal abuse six or seven months ago...?
I believe someone named "Jennifer" wrote the following:
This is rather arbitrary. Is an infant capable of using and
understanding language?* What makes langauge, or your own
idiosyncratic understanding of "abstract thought" morally
relevant?
*Pre-emptive attack: Yes, humans often pass their infant stage and
acquire language, but this common reply rests on potentiality
confusion A similar argument could be made for a third term fetus,
or a second term fetus, or a first term fetus, or a blastocyst, or
a zygote. You see where I'm going.
|11.18.04 @ 12:23AM|#
joe
Exactly why should you consider her pain and suffering to
have any moral significance? Maybe that's what pigwiggle was
getting at.
|11.18.04 @ 12:23AM|#
Some Jews and some Muslims don't eat pork for religious reasons, I'm of no religious faith/belief and I don't like to eat pork because I understand that pigs are quite smart-too smart to slaughter. You know, I think that maybe we all can get along... ;)
|11.18.04 @ 12:51AM|#
I don't think an inability to stand up and assert one's rights
necessarily makes one a candidate to be killed and eaten.
Like I said earlier, the great apes are unable to do this but they
are generally considered to be as smart as toddlers. We know that
they often express something that looks very much like emotion. I
have worked with mentally disabled people who were less aware of
the world and themselves than your average ape.
So, even though I don't believe it's morally wrong to eat the
things that are generally eaten, I don't think it's as cut and dry
as the PETA people and some here do.
I think that's the mistake people on both sides of the issue tend
to make. They think there's a simple answer to this somewhat
complex question.
|11.18.04 @ 1:38AM|#
People should not be killed (involuntarily) because such killing
does a harm to a person on top of the physical pain it might cause.
People, including adult humans, are intellgent enough to be self
aware and to have preferences about their futures. They have hopes
and goals. Killing a person prevents them from being able to
achieve those goals, and in that way does special harm to
him/her/it.
This is why it is wrong to (unjustly) kill a person -- and because
cows, carrots, chips, etc. are not persons, this is one argument to
show that killing a person is different.
The great apes, dolphins, etc. deserve special consideration
because they might be persons too, despite their inability to
communicate.
But it seems very unlikely that fish or even cows are people. So I
don't have any problem kiling a particular one for food.
|11.18.04 @ 1:53AM|#
Anyone can pick a carrot, but I wonder how many of you proud
meat eaters would be capable of killing and gutting an animal
yourselves.
Pffft. That's a pretty bad argument. As someone pointed out, I
couldn't perform surgery; does that mean that I shouldn't take
advantage of modern medicine? I'm tender-hearted, and it would be
difficult for me to kill an animal, one of the major reasons that I
don't hunt. But I have no moral objection to meat-eating, and
indeed I think that there are no universal moral
objections to doing so.
If you want to argue that the reaction of a mammal to massive
physical insult or impending death - the fear, pain, and struggle -
amounts only to biochemical reactions with no moral significance,
then why should I consider you or your mom's fear, pain and
struggle to have any moral significance?
Well, humans are the only animals we're aware of who are . . .
sentient? Sapient? I'm not sure what the current term is, but I
think it's sapient. It's pretty vague, but I believe the key
difference is awareness of others as individuals. Many, if not
most, mammals have self-awareness. They are aware that they exist,
at some level, even if it's not in the same way that a human would
understand that. Self-awareness is pretty common. The difference is
that humans, generally speaking, see others as being individuals
in the same way they are. People who can't do this are
sociopaths, and in many ways they act like highly intelligent
animals.
An animal isn't capable of moral decisions, because it doesn't
comprehend that the other beings it's harming are things that are
capable of being harmed in the same way that it is capable of being
harmed. Humans are capable of moral decisions, because they can
understand that. That is the key difference between a
human and an animal. If an animal ever shows the ability to be a
moral actor, then PETA will have a case. As Jennifer said, rights
have accompanying responsibilities. If an animal has rights, then
it has the moral responsibility to respect others' rights. Since it
cannot do so, it does not have rights. Humans have a moral
obligation to treat animals well, and to not be unneccessarily
cruel to them. But animals do not have the right to be treated
well.
From a practical standpoint, how much money would we be willing to
spend on keeping cows, sheep, chickens, etc., if there were no
return in the form of profits from selling them for meat? Most
domestic species would probably be extinct in short order if PETA
were to have its way.
|11.18.04 @ 2:07AM|#
grylliade makes excellent points, but there is one issue that I
think is questionable:
Humans have a moral obligation to treat animals well, and to
not be unnecessarily cruel to them. But animals do not have the
right to be treated well.
I'm not exactly sure what this means, but maybe:
(1) It is wrong for humans to unnecessarily harm animals because it
harms us in the process.
I don't think this is true. It sounds good, but it doesn't seem to
have any justification I can see.
There is an alternative:
(2) It is wrong for humans to unnecessarily harm animals because
animals feel pain and unnecessary pain is bad.
But I don't much like that either for the reasons that grylliade
lays out about moral rights requiring reciprocal moral
responsibility.
I think maybe the real answer is:
(3) It's not morally wrong for humans to unnecessarily harm
animals, but it is unattractive, unappealing, or ugly -- a claim
about aesthetics, not morals.
|11.18.04 @ 2:35AM|#
Humans require vitamin B12 for survival. Humans cannot
synthesize B12. Digestible B12 is not found in any plant species.
It is found only in animals (particularly, ruminant herbivores,
such as cow).
Pound for pound, a human's digestive track is almost the same
length-to-body-size ratio as a canine's, canines eating very little
plant material in nature. In fact, it is almost as short a
feline's, which eats no plant material at all.
Raw red meat is perfectly digestible, and is actually the only
known food source, other than bee's royal jelly, which can sustain
a human indefinitely with no vitamin deficiencies. I have eaten raw
meat before (I know, that puts me high up on the freak list, but I
had a good reason... ok, a reason), and it is no big deal to eat,
so the dental argument does not stand. Here's a hint; don't try to
chew it so much, it's not like eating boiled carrots. That is, if
you get an itch to eat raw red meat like I did... not that I'm
saying you will...
My point is, humans are built to eat meat, and to a lesser extent,
plants. That's science. I can give you dozens more facts to back it
up (and I will, if provoked). Nothing that is natural is 'bad' or
'immoral', including eating other animals, having sex, having
homosex, or taking recreational drugs, all of which take place in
the wild, and can be observed among many other species besides Homo
Sapiens.
Yes, animals should not be subjected to unnecessary cruelty, but
whether an animal is 'sapient' or not is irrelevant. I would eat a
chimp, if I were able to catch him, just as leopards do all the
time, and just as the chimp catches and eats wild pigs regularly.
You may argue that I may as well be eating other humans, but
cannibalism is a bit rare in nature... there seems to be an
instinctive bias against it. Humans seem to be on the short list of
higher forms that practice it.
P.S.: Another interesting tidbit; it appears 20% of all humans
carry a digestive antibody against a prion that exists only within
human nervous tissue. In other words, 1 out of 5 humans has an
active gene that is useful only for eating humans. Chew on
that.
|11.18.04 @ 4:11AM|#
I agree with the idea that, while animals aren't entitled to the
same rights humans have, and can rightly be used by humans for food
and human-benefiting research, humans should not tolerate
unnecessary cruelty to animals.
I'm still trying to figure out why I believe this, however.
I do have the beginnings of a utilitarian argument that tolerating
unnecessary cruelty to animals is bad for humans.
See, the so-called "higher" animals, at least, experience pain, and
are able to express pain in somewhat human-like ways. It is good
for humans to be upset when such an animal is in pain. Because, if
we become desensitized to human-like epxressions of pain in
animals, it becomes easier to become more callous toward actual
human pain. This is bad, because it blunts our natural reflex to
avoid actions that cause pain to others. In other words, if you
become accepting of casual cruelty to animals, you're probably more
likely to become blase' about cruelty to humans too.
What I don't like about this argument is that it's a fairly short
hop from there to "and we shouldn't tolerate depictions of
violence, cruelty or pain in the movies or on TV, because those
will desensitize you too." I don't want to end up with a
utilitarian argument for censorship. Of course, there is a
counter-argument that we know depictions of violence and cruelty in
the media are fake (except for the news) while actual animal
suffering is real. But I don't find that very satisfying yet.
For now, my instincts against needless animal cruelty are just
that, instincts. I'm still trying to construct a philosophical
underpinning to justify them.
|11.18.04 @ 4:32AM|#
I know this is so far down probably no one will see it, but my question about PETA is, are they against sex with fish, such as in the famous Led Zeppelin 'mud shark' incident?
Phil|11.18.04 @ 6:09AM|#
Nothing that is natural is 'bad' or 'immoral', including
eating other animals, having sex, having homosex, or taking
recreational drugs, all of which take place in the wild, and can be
observed among many other species besides Homo
Sapiens.
Ah, the naturalist fallacy, the idea that anything that takes place
"in nature" is "good." You don't often observe it in the wild like
this, so be sure to take pictures! Rape, torture, parent-child
incest, and lots of other things that take place "in nature" are
almost undoubtedly what most people would consider "bad" or
"immoral," which renders your statement untrue.
Humans require vitamin B12 for survival. Humans cannot
synthesize B12. Digestible B12 is not found in any plant species.
It is found only in animals (particularly, ruminant herbivores,
such as cow).
It is also available in animal sources that do not require killing
an animals, like eggs, milk and cheese.
|11.18.04 @ 8:33AM|#
Chimpanzees and apes I would draw the line on. A photo of
"bushmeat" in the Economist did it for me, and I'm also swayed by
the yet-unresolved hypothesis of if HIV/AIDS was simian
immunodeficiency syndrome that crossed the species barrier because
of bushmeat consumption.
In college a vegan friend of mine asserted that mammilian placentas
or afterbirths were OK in a vegan sense because there was no
explotation involved; and human placentas even better because the
mother could consent. I'm not sure if he wasn't pulling our leg.
His epiphany and decision to become vegan came when he was in high
school and worked for a summer at Burger King.
|11.18.04 @ 8:36AM|#
I'm a humanist vegetarian. I put the feelings and desires of
people above the feelings and desires of animals, for the most
part. I wouldn't let someone pick on my cats for fun, but if I go
to my grandmother's and she's made a huge pot roast because she
forgot about my eating habits, I'm going to damn well eat a piece
of pot roast. (And enjoy it, too, Grandma's pot roast never
misses.)
The main reason I'm a vegetarian is because I believe abstaining
from meat to be cleaner and healthier for me. I find that the
avoidance of unnecessary suffering is a desirable side effect. I
certainly have nothing to say about how YOU eat, provided I don't
have to suffer to provide you with your food.
|11.18.04 @ 10:18AM|#
Joe, There is a certain school of thought that insists that
plants do indeed feel something akin to pain. The evidence isn't
enough to convince me but there is evidence to back the
claim.
OTOH, who was the famous guy a few hundred years ago who insisted
animals didn't feel pain and who performed horriffic experiments
upon living animals while they were awake?
|11.18.04 @ 10:26AM|#
"If an animal ever shows the ability to be a moral actor, then
PETA will have a case. "
"It's not morally wrong for humans to unnecessarily harm animals,
but it is unattractive, unappealing, or ugly -- a claim about
aesthetics, not morals."
Watch "Why Dogs smile and Chimpazees Cry." Once you've seen a chimp
sign "tear" when a researcher loses her kid you'll be done with
this line of reasoning. Or you'll move chimps out of the "animal"
classification.
|11.18.04 @ 10:26AM|#
joe-
"A mammal can experience pain and terror. A carrot cannot. That's
not my opinion, that's demonstrable fact."
No disagreement there. My point was that you consider terror and
pain above whatever death processes a carrot goes through simply
because you identify, no other reason.
"...and you'd better come up with something more substantive than
some watered down Genesis "image of God" shit."
And inevitably we come to the source of morality. It really comes
down to what an individual perceives as right and wrong.
"why should I consider you or your mom's fear, pain and struggle to
have any moral significance?"
If your talking about someone hurting my mother, their motivation
would self preservation.
twc-
google Galen and vivisection
|11.18.04 @ 10:31AM|#
Would these conversations even be occurring if PETA people weren't out there saying batshit insane things?
|11.18.04 @ 10:32AM|#
I thought we ate meat becaue we could catch it and either
enslave it or just eat it.
If the meat does the same to me that's fine too.
Luckily, human's ancestors were the best killing machines on the
planet and seemed to kill and eat everything around them,
especially other talking hominids.
Also, where does PETA stand on medical animal testing for the
veterinary sciences? If the testing is to elp animals, is that OK?
Do PETA supporters volunteer for as test subjects in experiments
which would extend the life of animals?
drf|11.18.04 @ 10:37AM|#
so, what. this is a good argument for cockfighting, because this
way the chicken is plucked, mostly skinned, and partially cubed?
makes it easier and it saves time after a long day at work. Purdue
Cockfight Looser Strips.
(focus groups could help out with the name)
and lucy, we can test veterinary science with captured PETA
members. after all, they're the ones fighting in iraq and were
suspiciously absent from the WTC on 9/11, so they must be REAL
ANIMALS! you see? it's all a plot.
|11.18.04 @ 10:37AM|#
"Would these conversations even be occurring if PETA people
weren't out there" saying batshit insane things?"
Doubtfull. The whole B12 thing is a crock. I'm sure I could make it
in the lab without killing anything (or using milk, eggs, ...).
Phil|11.18.04 @ 10:46AM|#
OTOH, who was the famous guy a few hundred years ago who
insisted animals didn't feel pain and who performed horriffic
experiments upon living animals while they were awake?
Rene Descartes? He believed that animals were automatons whose
internal workings mimicked the reactions of "pain," "fear," and so
forth, but did not experience "real" feelings. A dark moment from
an otherwise brilliant philosopher. Of course, Rene Descartes was a
drunken fart: "I drink, therefore I am."
Here's a controversial statement: Scratch someone who does not
understand why it's wrong to cause animals -- oranything else --
unnecessary pain, and you'll find a budding sociopath underneath.
Animal torture in childhood and adolescence corresponds almost
perfectly with sociopathy later in life.
|11.18.04 @ 10:56AM|#
I for one could indeed capture, kill, and eat animals--I've done
so for fish and could learn for other animals. It's messy and not
pretty, but it beats starving to death.
By the same token, I wonder how many vegetarians could successfully
raise enough crops to feed themselves for any length of time? It is
also hard, unpleasant, and unattractive work that rarely goes
according to plan.
But if I don't raise my own crops, should I not eat vegetables?
Otherwise, what's the point of the "why don't you kill a cow
yourself" argument?
I know some organic farmers that could come close to feeding
themselves. I know many more city vegetarians who would starve in
the first few weeks, let alone over winter. I know far more good
ol' boys who would do just fine raising crops and eating animals
that they kill and dress themselves.
The White Anglo Saxon Protesta|11.18.04 @ 11:04AM|#
Next PETA rally I run across, I'm calling for the Scoops.
"SOYLENT GREEN IS PETA!!! SOYLENT GREEN IS PETA!!!"
|11.18.04 @ 11:07AM|#
Did groups such as PETA exist before the use of all types�
animals was so reduced by the introduction of machinery? If the
PETA guy couldn�t get to his big protest rally because his horse
was sick or just ornery that day, would it be OK for the PETA guy
to whip the horse? I bet he wouldn�t think twice about giving his
car a kick if it wouldn�t start.
Some animals are easy going and some are just so plain full of
cussedness that they have to be put down, just like people they
have different personalities. Perhaps since most people these days
only see dogs and cats which have been harshly bred for cuteness
and docility for many years they think that all animals are cute
and docile?
Tell me, what�s cuter than an animal close-up with a wide angled
lens?
The White Anglo Saxon Protesta|11.18.04 @ 11:15AM|#
We don't eat domesticated cats, but we should. One day they'll overrun us, form their own civilization and get even for millenia of being forced to play with balls of yarn and rubber mousies. Where's PETA gonna be when Morris has me crapping in a bucket of sand?
Kevin Carson|11.18.04 @ 11:18AM|#
chaitanya,
Anyone who compares killing a fish to killing a dog or cat is also
disingenous.
Given enough time and the right circumstances, I'm probably capable
of "empathizing" with anything that has a reasonably developed
cerebral cortex.
But a fish? Gimme a break.
The White Anglo Saxon Protesta|11.18.04 @ 11:28AM|#
One day my dad and I were out fishing at a local lake. The SAME
bluegill bit on the same jig-head lure of mine three times in ten
minutes. When they quit chomping down on stupid colored bits of
metal, rubber and thread, I'll be impressed enough with them to
consider their feelings.
Fish, I mean, not PETA members.
|11.18.04 @ 11:40AM|#
"Did groups such as PETA exist before the use of all types�
animals was so reduced by the introduction of machinery?"
Kenny, read up on factory farming. The mechanization of society has
not been entirely a blessing for animals, to put it mildly.
The White Anglo Saxon Protesta|11.18.04 @ 11:47AM|#
joe-
I'm from Iowa. "Factory farming," or "large scale hog confinement
operations" are a big problem - for human beings moreso than the
hogs. Ever seen "free range" domesticated hogs? They pretty much
hang around in one place, mostly as close together as possible. Hog
confinements aren't that big a cultural disruption for them. On the
other hand, the things crap about 12 times more by weight and
volume than the average human being. It's the sewage and the smell
that's the problem.
Unfortunately, we have no local control over the siting of these
operations. The Great State of Iowa protected Smithfield Foods,
Tyson, and the like from their neighbors years ago in the name of
economic development. The good news is that the pork market is in
the tank, while beef is at almost historic highs. And beef is still
largely raised conventionally, and with considerable loving
care.
|11.18.04 @ 12:07PM|#
I understand that mechanization allowed factory farming, just
like it allowed factory executions in the third reich.
I really meant that mechanization took animals out of the day to
day existance of most people in the US. I wondered if people became
more concerned about animal's welfare when they didn't have to
clean up their crap and get them to earn their keep.
Phil|11.18.04 @ 12:10PM|#
Tell me, what�s cuter than an animal close-up with a wide
angled lens?
A wide-angle closeup of an animal wearing a hat?
The White Anglo Saxon Protesta|11.18.04 @ 12:13PM|#
Kenny McC - "I understand that mechanization allowed factory
farming, just like it allowed factory executions in the third
reich."
Are you implying moral equivalience here?
|11.18.04 @ 12:29PM|#
Nope, not implying anything besides mechanization makes all sorts of stuff more efficient.
|11.18.04 @ 1:41PM|#
Let me step up and claim that gutting out a deer is no big deal.
After hitting nine with the truck, I decided that for the
betterment of mankind I'd better start hitting them with the slug
gun. Deer kill humans. We've eliminated their other
predators.
A sharp knife makes a good cut horizontally below the rib cage. A
good gut hook will unzip the animal like a tent fly. A bone saw
will quickly split the pelvis. Vension jerky is wonderful!
Jarod Diamond wrote "Guns, Germs and Steel." There he postulates
that survival of the fittest is species related, not for each
individual within the species. Cows, chickens, pigs all have
managed to avoid extinction by creating a symbiosis with man. We
eat them, but we also breed them, and invent and apply medicines to
the herd. This also includes species that we rarely eat, like
horses and dogs.
Species that don't work well with man, such as zebra and rhino,
don't fare as well.
|11.18.04 @ 3:29PM|#
Usoe, venison is terrific in a multitude of ways. If you feel
healthier eating it, then it's right for you. I don't choose to eat
it anymore, but I know and agree with the reasons why it would be
good to cull the herds, and it's good that you don't waste your
kills.
Sandy, I think the issue is not as much whether a vegetarian can
raise enough vegetables to eat, as it is whether the
farmer/householder is willing to use the time-tested storage and
preservation methods that keep less of the crop from deterioration
and damage. I know a lot of people who won't touch homemade
pickles, for example.
And while I'm on the subject of homemade pickles, Pigwiggle,
vitamin B12 is commonly made by bacteria. Some of these bacteria
live in our digestive tracts, so a healthy human can life for some
time on just what is made there. B12 bacteria can also be
cultivated in naturally fermented foods.
|11.19.04 @ 1:09PM|#
Lincoln wrote:
Watch "Why Dogs smile and Chimpazees Cry." Once you've seen a
chimp sign "tear" when a researcher loses her kid you'll be done
with this line of reasoning. Or you'll move chimps out of the
"animal" classification.
Earlier I wrote:
The great apes, dolphins, etc. deserve special consideration
because they might be persons too, despite their inability to
communicate.
|11.19.04 @ 1:58PM|#
I'd like to know PETA's position on eating fetuses -- animal or human. If a fish or a lobster is a person, is a human fetus? For the sake of logical consistency, is PETA hardline anti-abortion? Is my question somewhat sarcastic?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245