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
Michael Vick: All Shook Up
Not sure what to get your loved ones for Christmas this year? Why not cheap out and go for a cheap shot? Send your mom a virtual Michael Vick snow globe courtesy of PETA.
When you click through, you're treated to a snow globe featuring Vick in the prison yard spouting semi-identifiable catch phrases. Click on the globe and wiggle your mouse to shake it.
Or if you prefer sappy to
snarky, you could always opt for the cartoon kitties and puppies
(and, oddly, monkeys) reminding the recipient that
Jesus loves them, too. Apparently because they're just so
darned adorable.
For more reason on animal rights and/or Michael Vick--sorry we don't have our own Christmas animations on the topic--go here.
For a website that suggests the people at PETA sometimes fail to be fully Christ-like, go here.
|12.19.07 @ 10:36AM|#
Yep, that Michael Vick ranks right up there with Colonel
Sanders.
Wait... what?
Episiarch|12.19.07 @ 10:42AM|#
It's funny that dippy actresses and fashion models are up there
with a guy who created some pretty good fried chicken, a hunter
(let's not get into his other activities, because PETA only cares
about the hunting), and...a guy who tortured and electrocuted
dogs*.
* I believe that animals are property and he can do with them as he
likes, but he's still a sadistic asshole.
|12.19.07 @ 10:43AM|#
PETA hates KFC. I used to live in a town where a PETA guy and
gal (she was hot, outside of her costume I mean) would dress up as
a chicken and picket the local KFC (I kid you not)...
I guess KMW doesn't see the irony in picking on PETA because PETA
is making fun of figures that they feel violate their beleifs.
Cause Reason and H&R never do that, right?
|12.19.07 @ 10:46AM|#
"I believe that animals are property and he can do with them as
he likes, but he's still a sadistic asshole."
Speaking of animals, property and assholes, I take it you'd be fine
with bestiality Epi? Your neighbor could bang animals all day long
and we should be limited to not associating with him I
guess...
I love how anti-animal rights/welfare folks think the assertion
"animals are property" finishes the debate. Are they property like
my couch, which everyone agrees I can do with what I will? Because
they certainly seem different from a couch, don't they (they move,
like from the shade to the sun when they are cold, make noise, lick
your face, etc)?
|12.19.07 @ 10:47AM|#
So maybe they are property, but property that I cannot do with what I will, since they are obviously different from most property.
|12.19.07 @ 10:52AM|#
...a guy who tortured and electrocuted dogs*.
* I believe that animals are property and he can do with them as he
likes, but he's still a sadistic asshole.
I'm going to take the easy way out here, and say that it should be
up to the states to define their animal cruelty laws.
That being said, whether or not Vick should be in trouble for his
violent, intolerable behavior is one thing, but harvesting food for
eating or fabric for clothing, is not the same...
Episiarch|12.19.07 @ 10:57AM|#
Speaking of animals, property and assholes, I take it you'd
be fine with bestiality Epi?
"Sex with animals? There's no time, man!"
First of all, thanks so much for giving me the opportunity to use
that quote.
I'm fine with bestiality, yes. I'm really not concerned with the
sexual practices of others that don't harm human beings.
|12.19.07 @ 10:57AM|#
Your neighbor could bang animals all day long and we should
be limited to not associating with him I guess
I could care less whether a neighbor is banging their dog. In fact,
it probably is keeping said neighbor from raping a human...
|12.19.07 @ 10:59AM|#
Because they certainly seem different from a couch, don't
they (they move, like from the shade to the sun when they are cold,
make noise, lick your face, etc)?
Your couch doesn't do that stuff? You need to upgrade your
furniture.
|12.19.07 @ 11:01AM|#
Speaking of holiday cheer, the picture of Hitch in today's WaPo at the Reason Mag holiday party really made me regret not having attended.
|12.19.07 @ 11:07AM|#
Ethics 101 people: animals are sentient beings with the ability to feel pain, and have physical and emotional needs just like people. As with all moral issues the question is this: how would you like to be on the receiving end of the treament you dish out to them directly or indirectly? They're not necessary for food, I've been vegetarian/vegan for years and enjoy excellent health. Use of them in medical research is a tougher issue, and I wouldn't ban it completely, but would subject it to greater scrutiny. Those who do not reflect on these issues have a HUGE moral blind spot.
|12.19.07 @ 11:10AM|#
He also cursed a tree, causing it to whither and die. The Bible says a lot of things, and some of them are really stupid.
|12.19.07 @ 11:17AM|#
Those who do not reflect on these issues have a HUGE moral
blind spot.
I'm gonna open up a vegan grocery store. For every $100 you spend,
you get a free hairshirt.
jimmy|12.19.07 @ 11:19AM|#
why are there prison guard dogs in the PETA video? doesn't PETA believe that any form of animal servitude (pets, zoos, etc) is immoral?
|12.19.07 @ 11:20AM|#
To Anon: PETA is not comparing Jews to chickens, but the
treatment of animals to the Holocaust. Consider the
similarities:
1) Mass slaughter in an industrialized system.
2) Completely inhumane living conditions.
3) Hideously unnecessary medical "experiments"
4) Complete refusal to acknowledge even the most basic rights to
the oppressed. Consider the Nazis referring to Jews in an
animal-like way as "vermin".
|12.19.07 @ 11:20AM|#
I'm guessing they're OK with it as long as the animals get to hurt people, jimmy.
|12.19.07 @ 11:25AM|#
jimmy,
PETA is a pretty savvy bunch. They espouse the most radical
position when discussing philosophy, perform outrageous stunts to
get press, but agitate for reasonable positions that a good portion
of the public can on board with.
It's proven to be a very effective strategy and shoving the center
of public opinion their way.
|12.19.07 @ 11:29AM|#
" could care less whether a neighbor is banging their dog. In
fact, it probably is keeping said neighbor from raping a
human..."
I'm off to the movies, but I will make my usual animal-rights
thread challenge that no one ever can refute:
What is it that gives human beings moral consideration that animals
lack, and lack to such an extent that they deserve no moral
protection at all? Just to save everyone's time I'll go through the
usual list of stupid responses and provide a quick
refutation:
1. Humans can reason.
Infants can't reason but we give them moral conisderation.
2. Humans are the only beings that recognize rights/moral
claims.
Infants don't and we give them moral consideration.
3. The Bible says we are special.
See Bill Pope's comment on that topic. It says it all.
4. Humans can experience pain.
Animals obviously do too.
5. Yes but infants will develope reason, etc.
So I can torture terminally ill infants?
Have fun with your unreasoned out, unsustainable culturally
inherited beliefs.
Oh, before someone beats me too it, the juvenile
Yum I love a juicy burger! comment must be made (it is an animal
rights thread, no?)
|12.19.07 @ 11:30AM|#
And the angel of the lord came unto me,
Snatching me up from my place of slumber.
And took me on high, and higher still
Until we were in the space above the earth itself.
And he set me down in a farmland of our own Midwest,
And as we descended cries of impending doom rose from the
soil.
One thousand - nay - a million voices, full of fear.
And terror possessed me to end.
And I begged, "Angel of the lord, what are these tortured
screams?"
And the angel replied unto me: "These are the cries of the carrots.
The cries of the carrots. You see sage, tomorrow is harvest day and
to them, it is.the.holocaust."
And I sprang from my slumber drenched in sweat
Like the tears of a 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 bothers!
Can I get an amen? Can I get a hallelujah?
Thank you Jesus.
|12.19.07 @ 11:34AM|#
I've never understood why advertising the fact that you don't
realize plants lack a nervous system is considered an argument
against animal rights.
What's the difference between a carrot and a dog? What are you,
kidding me?
|12.19.07 @ 11:40AM|#
Depends on whether the carrot is part of a giant, sapient network of überflora. Could be, you know.
Episiarch|12.19.07 @ 11:42AM|#
I want some fucking recognition for my ATHF quote, god damn it.
How often can you slip that one into a conversation?
What's the difference between a carrot and a dog? What are you,
kidding me?
One would be the meat portion of the dish and the other would be
the vegetable?
|12.19.07 @ 11:42AM|#
Joe,
Every time I see that Citizen's Energy ad, I think of you. Any
chance you will change your handle to "Joe-4-oil"
|12.19.07 @ 11:43AM|#
joe,
Be careful. Plants
are more interesting
and senient
than most people give them credit for they can even feel
pain.
VM|12.19.07 @ 11:44AM|#
"What's the difference between a carrot and a dog? What are you,
kidding me?
One would be the meat portion of the dish and the other would be
the vegetable"
Or consuming the latter allows you to have your pudding.
|12.19.07 @ 11:51AM|#
Mo,
I'm not sure what that "Science Daily" site is all about, but the
way they anthropomorphize plants' internal chemical reactions is
not terribly auspicious.
|12.19.07 @ 11:54AM|#
What's the difference between a carrot and a dog? What are
you, kidding me?
Agreed, joe. A much better question for PETA folks is, "What's the
difference between your children and the head lice they bring home
from school?" IOW, you place a line somewhere too, don't you?
Mother Nature|12.19.07 @ 11:57AM|#
What is it that gives human beings moral consideration that
animals lack, and lack to such an extent that they deserve no moral
protection at all?
Humans are animals and deserve no moral consideration. Animals kill
each other all the time, why should humans be any different? An
individual's only goal should be to take any action necessary to
ensure the long term propogation of their genetic materials.
|12.19.07 @ 11:57AM|#
J sub,
I place a number of lines.
I just try to make sure they reflect principled and rational
determinations.
Not seeing a difference between the ability to experience pain and
not is neither principled nor rational.
Elemenope|12.19.07 @ 11:59AM|#
sage -
And I see another Tool fan in the crowd. ;)
Certainly, though, the point being made by MJK (namely that the
perpetuation of life comes at the inevitable expense of consuming
other lives) need not draw us into the absolutism of worth that
either PETA or the KFC folk would require.
I'm not leaping on the Bill Popemobile, here, but it is clear that
most higher animals have the capacity for forming memories,
experiencing pain, and displaying preferences; I think these
factors place them in at least the realm of ethical
consideration, if not necessarily moral rights;
they are certainly, clearly, in a different ethical space from
furniture.
|12.19.07 @ 12:04PM|#
So numbing medication is the key? If we numb the animals and/or
plants, we're moral? Am I following this thread correctly?
I'm above this debate, as I absorb energy directly from the sun.
You murdering fiends should all be ashamed.
|12.19.07 @ 12:10PM|#
Elemenope,
That wuz from memory, such as it is ;-)
They're the best band out there, bar none.
Your musical taste is noteworthy.
|12.19.07 @ 12:18PM|#
Yeah, well, choices always were a problem for you.
You know what you need, sage?
|12.19.07 @ 12:19PM|#
I place a number of lines.
I just try to make sure they reflect principled and rational
determinations.
Not seeing a difference between the ability to experience pain and
not is neither principled nor rational.
I too place line attempting to be rational and morally consistent.
I place my line at the Genus level, that is Homo. If a Homo erectus
tribe were to be discvered in New Guinea tomorrow, I would deem it
to be immoral to treat them as "property". It all seems so simple,
but it's not really and intelligent people would likely agree with
the morality assessment difficulty.
For example, I consider dogs, cats, etc.property. I do not consider
shooting, then treating them, in order to advance trauma treatment
research, immoral, nor would I ever support banning the practice.
OTOH, I, inconsistently, consider dogfighting to be immoral and
actually support the legal prohibition of the practice. Butchering
Fido for the dinner table - OK. Having Fido and Spot fight to the
death for entertainment - Not OK.
Your point about experiencing pain, i.e. nervous system
development, is where I base my "pro-choice with restrictions"
abortion stance.
One last point, rodents feel pain. Would you support killing rats
and mice when they get into a granary?
|12.19.07 @ 12:26PM|#
The usually reasonable Episiarch wrote: a hunter [Cheney]
(let's not get into his other activities, because PETA only cares
about the hunting
That's because PETA is a single-issue group. Are there other
animal-related accusations against Cheney of which I'm
unaware?
I believe that animals are property and he can do with them as
he likes, but he's still a sadistic asshole.
Well, everything after the comma is pretty much gratuitous BS then.
It's this sort of viewpoint that really keeps libertarians
marginalized.
I want some fucking recognition for my ATHF quote, god damn
it.
Sorry, you'll have to look elsewhere. I'm too busy trying to have a
serious policy discussion to fluff your ego.
One would be the meat portion of the dish and the other would
be the vegetable?
Har, har, hardy, har-har. See above.
|12.19.07 @ 12:28PM|#
joe,
someone strong to guide me.
I can play that game all day. Except for where I can't understand
what Maynard is saying. Many times I've had to look stuff up.
x,y|12.19.07 @ 12:29PM|#
Ethics 101 people: animals are sentient beings with the ability to feel pain, and have physical and emotional needs just like people. As with all moral issues the question is this: how would you like to be on the receiving end of the treament you dish out to them directly or indirectly? They're not necessary for food, I've been vegetarian/vegan for years and enjoy excellent health. Use of them in medical research is a tougher issue, and I wouldn't ban it completely, but would subject it to greater scrutiny. Those who do not reflect on these issues have a HUGE moral blind spot.
1. Not all animals are sentinent and feel pain. Besides, that's a
stupid standard to evaluate whether you can morally kill something.
People in comas can't feel pain and are no longer sentinent. Is it
morally permissible to kill them?
2. You cannot drive, ride a bike, or walk to work without killing
animals.
3. You cannot build a house without killing animals.
4. You cannot farm non-meat products without killing animals.
IOW, regardless of how you live your life, you will kill animals.
You have to turn your brain off not to know this.
The problem I have with animal-rights moralists is that they draw
arbitrary lines about when and how killing (some) animals is
morally impermissible. But because none of them have clean hands, I
call BS.
x,y|12.19.07 @ 12:34PM|#
*sentient
**Point of emphasis: Anyone who (1) drives, rides a bike, or walks
to work, (2) builds a house, or (3) farms non-meat products is
intentionally killing animals.
|12.19.07 @ 12:34PM|#
J sub D,
I am ok with killing rodents at the granary, and even with raising
and slaughtering livestock for food, as long as it is done as
humanely as possibly. When I said I draw lots of lines, this is an
example: I believe there is one line between who may be killed and
not, and another between what killing requires affirmative concern
for humane methods. I don't care if you rip a sponge into pieces
over the course of a week, but I'm appalled by the conditions
chickens are forced to live in at the farms that supply Tyson.
|12.19.07 @ 12:42PM|#
You all sure could use a vacation from this stupid shit, silly
shit, stupid shit.
Learn to swim. Learn to swim. Learn to swim. Learn to swim. Learn
to swim. Learn to swim. Learn to swim. Learn to swim. Learn to
swim.
I've a suggestion to keep you all occupied.
Learn to swim. Learn to swim. Learn to swim. Learn to swim. Learn
to swim. Learn to swim. Learn to swim. Learn to swim. Learn to
swim.
Elemenope|12.19.07 @ 12:42PM|#
x,y --
You cannot drive, ride a bike, or walk to work without killing
animals...You cannot build a house without killing animals...You
cannot farm non-meat products without killing animals.
No kidding. But that is never an appropriate standard when applying
practical ethics. All actions have consequences, and some
consequences are unintended. The fact that nobody's hands are clean
does not invalidate their ability to make what is a different point
altogether:
You should give a shit.
That's the real point. PETA people kill through their actions many
animals, just as Ted Nugent and Dubya and You and I do with ours.
The salient details are whether:
a. You care that you cause suffering and death through your
actions
and
b. You act to minimize those two as you go about your daily lives
and goals
There is a wide moral gulf between a person who lives in a modern
society and by consequence lives at the expense of animals but
wishes it were and acts to try to make it otherwise, and a person
who just doesn't give a shit.
Episiarch|12.19.07 @ 12:43PM|#
Tonio, sorry if you don't like my animals are property
viewpoint, but that's the way it is. Having consideration for their
pain, is, in my position, the moral viewpoint, but I do not think
it should be legally enforced. Social "enforcement" (people being
treated shitty by others who find out about their animal cruelty)
is fine.
Is it OK to kill your horses to survive when you are trapped in a
cave in December in the Rockies? Is it OK to kill your fellow
humans in the same situation?
If you said "yes" then "no", there is a distinction. If you said
"no" then "no", you are a fool.
Plus, see what x,y said.
Elemenope|12.19.07 @ 12:45PM|#
Jeez, this place is just absolutely lousy with
Tool fans. Why knew? ;)
...
You claimed, all this time, that you would die for me; Why, then,
are you so surprised when you hear your own eulogy?
|12.19.07 @ 12:45PM|#
I'm still having leg of lamb for Christmas
dinner.
Speaking of brilliant bands, name the song and band:
In a hotel on the phone
You're gonna leave me, I should've known (i should've known)
And I was thinkin, it's so sad
I didn't want you to go
Don't wanna follow the laws of man (yes, sir)
Bloody apron, leg of lamb
It's so hard to win
When there's so much to lose
|12.19.07 @ 12:46PM|#
VM,
Congrats, you are the first to comment on this. I generally include
a similar pithy "easter egg" in my posts.
Happy Holly Daze.
x,y|12.19.07 @ 12:51PM|#
PETA is a pretty savvy bunch. They espouse the most radical position when discussing philosophy, perform outrageous stunts to get press, but agitate for reasonable positions that a good portion of the public can on board with.
It's proven to be a very effective strategy and shoving the center of public opinion their way.
Then why can't Ron Paul crack 10% in any scientific poll?
[/Edward-like zing]
Kolohe|12.19.07 @ 12:57PM|#
That's because PETA is a single-issue group. Are there other
animal-related accusations against Cheney of which I'm
unaware?
He killed, (or caused to die), a bunch of fish in and around the
Klamath river.
x,y|12.19.07 @ 1:01PM|#
joe,
I understand there's a legal distinction between "intent" and
"knowledge" but for this discussion I'm not sure it matters. I'd
say they almost certainly have constructive knowledge and most
likley have knowledge. They might have no intent in the pure legal
sense, but that's another question.
But that is never an appropriate standard when applying practical ethics. All actions have consequences, and some consequences are unintended. The fact that nobody's hands are clean does not invalidate their ability to make what is a different point altogether:
I maintain that it's an appropriate standard -- precisely because
they intend (or, as joe says, know) their actions will kill
animals. Sticking your head in the sand and calling the result an
"unintended consequence" is a cop-out. Like I said, everyone knows
(or has to be wilfully deceiving themselves) that doing any day to
day activity means killing animals.
And what different point are they trying to make? They're trying to
say killing animals is immoral. I'm calling them hypocrites of the
worst kind. It seriously undermines their position.
|12.19.07 @ 1:03PM|#
"x,y" wrote: The problem I have with animal-rights moralists
is that they draw arbitrary lines about when and how killing (some)
animals is morally impermissible. But because none of them have
clean hands, I call BS.
This is a reductio ad absurdum. Because ARMs refuse to be
absolutists and stress about every organism that's classified as a
member of the animal kingdom you conveniently call BS.
Generally, ARMs are most concerned with mammals and birds
(warm-blooded vertebrates) because they are most similar to humans
and most able to feel pain, having complex central nervous systems.
This is not an arbitrary distinction.
Yes, insects and other small, relatively simple organisms are not
as much of a concern. The large numbers and small sizes of such
organisms makes it impractical to avoid killing them. Their
relatively simple nervous systems (limited by their size) also is a
factor in prioritizing which battles to fight.
Less scientific ARMs express the dividing line at "anything with a
face," which is somewhat arbitrary and sentimentalist.
Any other straw men you need demolished?
x,y|12.19.07 @ 1:06PM|#
1. Humans can reason.
Infants can't reason but we give them moral conisderation.
2. Humans are the only beings that recognize rights/moral claims.
Infants don't and we give them moral consideration.
3. The Bible says we are special.
See Bill Pope's comment on that topic. It says it all.
4. Humans can experience pain.
Animals obviously do too.
5. Yes but infants will develope reason, etc.
So I can torture terminally ill infants?
Have fun with your unreasoned out, unsustainable culturally inherited beliefs.
I no longer subscribe to this view, but this would be an effective
take-down --
It's a variant on #5. And it's not that they "will" develop reason,
the abilility to recognize rights and moral claims, etc., but that
humans are the only species with the "radical capacity" to develop
those tools. Framed this way, it's irrelevant that some people
don't yet have those tools, e.g., infants. It's also irrelevant
that some never could, e.g., mentally retarded or other genetically
defective infants. As a species, we have a radical capacity that no
other species has. That, goes that argument, is what differentiates
humans from non-humans.
x,y|12.19.07 @ 1:12PM|#
Tonio,
And what's wrong what reductio ad absurdum? Can you refute the
point or not?
Generally, ARMs are most concerned with mammals and birds (warm-blooded vertebrates) because they are most similar to humans and most able to feel pain, having complex central nervous systems. This is not an arbitrary distinction.
Why is this not an arbitrary distinction? You can't farm
without killing some animals that have these characteristics (like
rabbits). People who take this position are just drawing the line
at the point where it starts being inconvenient for them to hold
the logical extension of their position. Perhaps it's not
arbitrary, but it's intellectually dishonest.
|12.19.07 @ 1:14PM|#
PETA members kill bugs when they ride their bikes.
The Reason Insitutue funds Social Security when they pay their
employees' payroll taxes.
So what? They do what they have to do in order to function in the
world they want to change.
|12.19.07 @ 1:16PM|#
When x,y can show me a PETA statement against the killing of insects, I'll consider his point about their hypocrisy worthy of consideration.
x,y|12.19.07 @ 1:18PM|#
Tonio,
A strawman? Do you even know what that means? The only claim I
attributed to animal-rights moralists is that they believe killing
animals is wrong. And there are plenty who don't subscribe to your
oh-so-convenient distinction between warm, funny animals and all
the rest.
Elemenope|12.19.07 @ 1:21PM|#
x,y --
That would be a decent take-down if the definition of 'species'
were not as plastic as it obviously is. Even on the chomosomal
level, entities most people (including me) would define as human,
such as sufferers of Down's Syndrome or Fragile-X Syndrome, fail
the genetic definition of human.
And laterally, such people do serious damage to the theory that a
'species' can as a species possess any 'radical capacity'
even if specific individuals demonstrably never will develop those
capacities.
re:hypocrisy
In a world as complicated as ours, it is impossible to find anyone
to champion any cause without the practical inevitability
of some hypocrisy. e.g. Ron Paul and Libertarianism, for a salient
example. That shoudl not prevent people from pointing out what
others choose not to consider, which namely is that in those areas
where our choices do allow us a difference between harming or not
harming someone/something, we should choose to care rather than not
care, and choose to inflict less pain instead of more.
Hypocrisy, accidental or intentional does not blunt that
argument one bit. And you certainly can't say that PETA people
don't care nor can you say that they aren't trying to
minimize suffering of animals. On the hierarchy of hypocrites
in the modern world, they rank fairly low.
x,y|12.19.07 @ 1:23PM|#
"What do you mean by 'animal rights'?"
People who support animal rights believe that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other purpose and that animals deserve consideration of their best interests regardless of whether they are cute, useful to humans, or endangered and regardless of whether any human cares about them at all (just as a mentally challenged human has rights even if he or she is not cute or useful and even if everyone dislikes him or her).
http://www.peta.org/about/faq.asp
PETA = People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
Not just *some* animals.
VM|12.19.07 @ 1:26PM|#
Tonio -
that thread is a particularly awesome reference, and one that is
greatly appreciated!! hier is
why!!!
cheers and Super Silly Season to you, too!
:)
|12.19.07 @ 1:28PM|#
Episiarch wrote:
Is it OK to kill your horses to survive when you are trapped in
a cave in December in the Rockies? Is it OK to kill your fellow
humans in the same situation?
If you said "yes" then "no", there is a distinction. If you said
"no" then "no", you are a fool.
Sorry, my answer did not match either of your pre-defined
choices.
Plus, see what x,y said.
Duly demolished in an earlier comment. Disappointed that you would
buy-in to x,y shoddy argument, you're usually more astute than
that.
|12.19.07 @ 1:30PM|#
Not just *some* animals.
Neither the word "insects," nor the word "all," appear in that
statement.
x,y|12.19.07 @ 1:31PM|#
Elemenope -
Point taken. I'll grant that PETA and its members are fairly
consistent and are passionate about animals. But by the same token,
I think you'll have to grant that they are hypocrites. I think it
undermines their position (a lot), but I don't think I said it's
enough to completely discredit their position.
Fact is, I'm an anarchist and don't think we should have animal
abuse laws or laws against murder (of humans). I just wanted to
point out that they stop caring about animals when it becomes
convenient for them to do so. That's horseshit.
|12.19.07 @ 1:34PM|#
I think it undermines their position by demonstrating its idealistic inapplicability, but there is no hypocrisy evident.
x,y|12.19.07 @ 1:35PM|#
Don't be pedantic joe. You're all right when you argue in good faith. But that's lame and you know it. Plus see the part I set in bold. It's pretty damn clear they mean all animals.
x,y|12.19.07 @ 1:40PM|#
A hypocrite is someone whose actual actions belie his stated
positions.
PETA members claims to support animal rights. As I quoted above
(from PETA's own website), this includes all animals "regardless of
whether they are cute, useful to humans, or endangered and
regardless of whether any human cares about them at all").
In practice, PETA members drive to work, walk on the grass, ride
bicycles, build houses, and farm. In other words, they live. As I
also noted, you cannot live without knowing that living means you
are going to kill animals.
That is textbook hypocrisy.
x,y|12.19.07 @ 1:43PM|#
PETA members kill bugs when they ride their bikes.
The Reason Insitutue funds Social Security when they pay their employees' payroll taxes.
Voluntary action vs. coercion.
|12.19.07 @ 1:45PM|#
It's pretty damn clear they mean all animals.
It's not clear at all to me that they are saying that insects have
the same moral status as chimps. Not even remotely.
The actions they take and the concerns they express about the
maltreatment of animals belie your self-serving misreading of their
position as well.
|12.19.07 @ 1:46PM|#
Voluntary action vs. coercion.
If you don't have a choice, your actions are not voluntary.
They do not have a choice about whether they are going to
unintentionally run over bugs.
|12.19.07 @ 1:48PM|#
x,y:
Elemenope answered all of your rebuttals quite adequately. Thanks,
Elemenope!
Yes, you are using strawman arguments in the rhetorical sense of
the word; there is a slightly different meaning in legal history
that doesn't apply here.
And there are plenty who don't subscribe to your
oh-so-convenient distinction between warm, funny animals and all
the rest.
Well, I'm in the reality-based community, as are many ARMs.
Episiarch|12.19.07 @ 1:51PM|#
PETA members also take insulin derived from animals. When called
on it, they claim they need it to fight for animals.
No one in their right mind would use PETA as a good example of
ARMs.
If you said "yes" then "no", there is a distinction. If you
said "no" then "no", you are a fool.
Sorry, my answer did not match either of your pre-defined
choices.
You going to tell me what your answer was? Because otherwise, your
answer is meaningless.
|12.19.07 @ 1:52PM|#
This is one of those "Al Gore doesn't live in a mud hut" things,
isn't it?
Al Gore doesn't say we should live in mud huts, but we pretend he
did, we can call him a hypocrite for not living in a mud hut!
|12.19.07 @ 1:52PM|#
Perhaps the rights of invertebrates don't measure up to birds,
mammals, reptiles, and fish, simply because of that whole backbone
thing.
How does PETA feel about cephalopods? They're more intelligent than
many humans I know.
VM|12.19.07 @ 1:57PM|#
"Al Gore doesn't live in a mud hut" things, isn't it?
"
compromise:
consider tipper. Al Gore obviously is fucking a mud hut.
now, moving on.
|12.19.07 @ 1:59PM|#
When x,y can show me a PETA statement against the killing of
insects, I'll consider his point about their hypocrisy worthy of
consideration.
joe, let's start with the definition of animal. Definitions are
useful things when having a discussion.
From Merriam Webster on-line.
Main Entry:
1an·i·mal
Pronunciation: \ˈa-nə-məl\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from animale, neuter of animalis animate, from
anima soul - more at animate
Date: 14th century
1: any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including
many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as
protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells
without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity
for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as
proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity,
and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor
responses to stimulation
2 a: one of the lower animals as distinguished from human beings b:
mammal; broadly : vertebrate
3: a human being considered chiefly as physical or nonrational;
also : this nature
4: a person with a particular interest or aptitude [a political
animal]
5: matter, thing [the theater…is an entirely different animal -
Arthur Miller]; also : creature 1c
From the PETA website home page
-
Animals Are Not Ours to Eat
Animals Are Not Ours to Wear
Animals Are Not Ours to Experiment On
Animals Are Not Ours to Use for Entertainment
Animals Are Not Ours to Abuse in Any Way
Ignoring definition 3 thru 5, and giving PETA the benefit of the
doubt, let's go with definition 2 in it's broadest sense, i.e.
vertabrate.
PETA is against -
Farming/Ranching
Hunting
Fishing
Rodent Extermination
Animal Fxperimentation
Pet Ownership
Beasts of Burden
And that definition would not include Cephalopoda, of which many
species have highly developed nervous systems. To include them you
have to go with definition 1, and all that entails, roaches
etc.
The point of this rather tedious post is, PETA is a nutjob
organization that deserves all of the mockery and derision that
intelligent people can send their way.
|12.19.07 @ 2:00PM|#
joe,
The nervous system works through a series of chemical reactions,
just like it does with plants. Just because it's a different kind
of "nervous system" doesn't mean it doesn't matter. There are
plants far, far more evolutionarily advanced than animals. Just
because they don't move doesn't mean they're less amazing or worthy
of respect than animals.
Elemenope|12.19.07 @ 2:03PM|#
x,y --
I guess I just have a very high tolerance for
hypocrisy-in-the-course-of-daily-life. I think Joe put it very well
when he pointed out that even Reason magazine deducts
payroll taxes for all the entitlements they profess to hate; it is
what they need to do in order to exist as a business. Without that
act of incidental hypocrisy, they could not publish and hence could
not get their message out.
Put another way, if Martin Luther King, Jr., after a long hard day
of getting arrested and beat up by southern cops went home to fuck
someone other than his wife and read a little Marx, these private
in-the-course-of-daily-life hypocrisies against the life of a
right-by-God minister do not diminish the moral authority that he
had to speak on segregation, or even his ability to employ
arguments from his faith to do so.
I cannot, every time I go shopping, think about all the
consequences of each item I purchase. I cannot think, for every
bushel of grapes, about my abetting of labor practices I find
abhorrent by buying them; I cannot think of how many barrels of oil
had to be processed to harvest, refrigerate, transport, and provide
the packaging for each loaf of bread. To do so, seriously, would
create absolute moral paralysis.
The only sort of hypocrisy that matters in my mind is that which
includes the willful deception of others in pursuit of a practical
effect antithetical to the stated principles of the actor. Thus,
in-the-course-of-the-day decisions don't matter as much as the
morally positive situations (i.e. where the moral choice is readily
apparent, salient, and the actor's choice is dispositive).
I seriously doubt that many animal rights activists ever think
about how many animals died to provide them with their wool
sweaters or subcompact cars; so, even if they are willfully
deceiving themselves, it is more likely than not a deception only
calibrated to the practicalities of living modern life. I would
submit that that is the wrong area to analyze the intentions of a
person to look for hypocrisy. If a PETA member secretly attended
bull fights, lit dogs on fire, or hunted for sport, then
that would be relevant, salient hypocrisy.
|12.19.07 @ 2:06PM|#
J sub D,
PETA is an extremist organization that makes some good points and
some bad points, and the public deserves to have discussions about
the issues they raise take place in an honest atmosphere. Yelling
"a-ha!" because their members don't do things that PETA has never
said they should do doesn't contribute to anything except the sense
of well-being among those who'd rather ignore the issues they raise
than think about them.
|12.19.07 @ 2:06PM|#
Actually, Gore living in an massive, extra-energy-sucking
mansion until called on it is textbook hypocrisy.
Something more than a mud hut but less than the Death Star probably
wouldn't have drawn that much attention.
I thought the one good point that P&T raised on their PETA
episode was that at least one PETA executive (and doubtlessly tens
of thousands of members) use medications derived from animal
testing. I'm not suggesting that they should die rather than use
such medications, but, you see, they are making that
suggestion. For other people.
|12.19.07 @ 2:08PM|#
joe,
PETA's extremism is a critical point. Animal rights arguments are
valid, and, in fact, most of us adopt some of them. PETA is helping
to unnecessarily polarize the debate. I find them and their tactics
disturbing and counterproductive.
|12.19.07 @ 2:11PM|#
Mo,
The nervous system works through a series of chemical
reactions, just like it does with plants. Yes and "jdkdm rm
reiermfkfierkj eriemm dkd urehr fid" works through a series of
characters ans spaces, just like a coherent English sentence. A
pile of bricks and chunks of concrete are made up of the same
materials as a house. A dead body is made up of the same things as
a living human. So? It's not the ingredients, but what is made up
of those ingredients, that creates the meaning and status.
There are plants far, far more evolutionarily advanced than
animals. Evolutionarily "advanced" is a subjective judgement.
"Advanced," how? They arose later? Their physical structure is more
complicated? So what? None of those things is relevant to their
moral status.
Just because they don't move doesn't mean they're less amazing
or worthy of respect than animals. "Just because they don't
move" is a straw man.
They are certainly amazing, but that doesn't translate into moral
status, either.
Elemenope|12.19.07 @ 2:13PM|#
Not to rain on anyone's "insects are animals, too" and "animals
are property" parades, but...
Imagine you are a farmer who grows some insect-pollinated crop, and
your next-door neighbor farmer happens to be the one on whose land
the honeybees reside. He didn't put them there, and let's say for
the sake of argument that they predate his ownership of the
neighboring property.
Are the bees "merely his property" to do with as he pleases, or are
they more like a river that runs through his and others' properties
and therefore have a more complicated relationship enmeshed with
the common interest? After all, your livelihood depends upon the
presence of the bees, which predate your neighbor's property
interest.
Making animals "merely property" does very little to solve some
ethical and legal questions any more than making sections of river
"merely property" did.
Can an animal "trespass"? A bear that wanders onto your property
looking for food or out of curiosity is not your property. On what
grounds (say, for the sake of argument, it poses no threat to your
life or your property) could you shoot it?
|12.19.07 @ 2:15PM|#
Actually, Gore living in an massive, extra-energy-sucking
mansion until called on it.. never actually happened. Al Gore
began to renovate his existing home before the silly-season stories
started being repeated in every right-of-center rag on the
intertubez.
As for PETA's polarization, the proof is in the soy-pudding. The
country has become considerably more sensitized to these issues
since PETA began its run. Sometimes it's helpful to see what "too
far" looks like, and their very extremism has put issues into the
national consciousness that would not otherwise be there.
Urkobold™|12.19.07 @ 2:16PM|#
THE URKOBOLD SECRETLY PERFORMS ABORTIONS ON PLANTS. WITHOUT ANESTHESIA. HE IS SO ASHAMED.
|12.19.07 @ 2:18PM|#
joe,
That's spin. He was spouting energy-use rhetoric for years
before he made any personal commitment to it. You can support him
without being blind to his hypocrisy. That's the problem with most
of our so-called leaders.
|12.19.07 @ 2:22PM|#
PETA is an extremist organization that makes some good
points and some bad points, ...
PETA is a nutjob organization that deserves all of the mockery
and derision that intelligent people can send their way.
ALL extremist/nutjob organizations make a good
point once in a while. See Aryan Nation, Scientology, Young earth
creationists for other examples. Even a blind pig ...
ALL such organizations DESERVE
mockery, ridicule and derision from thinking people.
|12.19.07 @ 2:24PM|#
I think responding to physical damage by protecting itself and releasing an anesthetic shows that it's a coherent sentence, just a different type. What makes a roach or a fish more worthy of moral status than a redwood or a yew?
|12.19.07 @ 2:27PM|#
It would be very nice of PETA to give their definition of animal wouldn't it? Have they? I'm off to google to "see what he could see".
Episiarch|12.19.07 @ 2:30PM|#
As for PETA's polarization, the proof is in the soy-pudding.
The country has become considerably more sensitized to these issues
since PETA began its run. Sometimes it's helpful to see what "too
far" looks like, and their very extremism has put issues into the
national consciousness that would not otherwise be
there.
As for Scientology's polarization, the proof is in the
Cruise-pudding. The country has become considerably more sensitized
to thetan issues since Scientology began its run. Sometimes it's
helpful to see what "batshit crazy" looks like, and their very
extremism has put thetans, Katie Holmes, and South Park episodes
into the national consciousness that would not otherwise be
there.
x,y|12.19.07 @ 2:35PM|#
joe,
If PETA doesn't mean all animals, what do you make of the following
language from its website:
People who support animal rights believe that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other purpose and that animals deserve consideration of their best interests regardless of whether they are cute, useful to humans, or endangered and regardless of whether any human cares about them at all (just as a mentally challenged human has rights even if he or she is not cute or useful and even if everyone dislikes him or her).
Looks to me like they mean all animals, regardless of whether
they're cute and fuzzy. If you have a better way to reading that
sentence or a different quotation to look at, I'm ready to be
proved wrong.
|12.19.07 @ 2:36PM|#
Mo,
I think responding to physical damage by protecting itself and
releasing an anesthetic shows that it's a coherent sentence, just a
different type.
I don't. Stimulus X causes release of Chemical Y. Chemical Y
results in growth of material Z. No coherence, no sentience, just a
number of chemical and physical responses that effect each other.
The formation of a corrosion-stopping green patina on pennies
exposed to the elements doesn't demonstrate sentience.
|12.19.07 @ 2:38PM|#
Episiarch,
Your overly-cute parody falls apart here:
The country has become considerably more sensitized to thetan
issues since Scientology began its run.
No, it hasn't. Unlike belief in the tenets of Scientology, concern
about animal welfare issues has actually increased to a noticeable
degree.
|12.19.07 @ 2:40PM|#
What I conclude from that, x,y, is that they wish to expand the circle of concern beyhond "charismatic mega-fauna."
x,y|12.19.07 @ 2:40PM|#
You know you're losing an argument when you've basically conceded the other peron's point and you're resorting to, "well sure, it's hypocritical, but it's not salient hypocrisy."
Episiarch|12.19.07 @ 2:44PM|#
joe, my point was that you are expressing support and a sort of
grudging admiration for a group of cultists (PETA is a cult, sorry
but it is true) who have engaged in questionable, and illegal, and
even violent, behavior to achieve their ends. Let's try another,
less humorous one:
As for Eric Rudolph's polarization, the proof is in the
fetus-pudding. The country has become considerably more sensitized
to these issues since Rudolph killed. Sometimes it's helpful to see
what "too far" looks like, and his very extremism has put issues
into the national consciousness that would not otherwise be
there.
See my point now?
|12.19.07 @ 2:48PM|#
It would be very nice of PETA to give their definition of
animal wouldn't it? Have they?
From the About PETA
website FAQs
"Where do you draw the line?"
The renowned humanitarian Albert Schweitzer, who accomplished so
much for both humans and animals in his lifetime, would take time
to stoop and move a worm from hot pavement to cool earth. Aware of
the problems and responsibilities that an expanded ethic brings, he
said, "A man is really ethical only when he obeys the constraint
laid on him to aid all life which he is able to help … He does not
ask how far this or that life deserves sympathy … nor how far it is
capable of feeling." We can't stop all suffering, but that doesn't
mean that we shouldn't stop any. In today's world of virtually
unlimited choices, there are plenty of kind, gentle ways for us to
feed, clothe, entertain, and educate ourselves that do not involve
killing animals.
You will note the question is assiduously avoided. It appereas to
be be a never ending quest, without boundaries. Like fairness.
VM|12.19.07 @ 2:48PM|#
Fetus pudding?
between that and "Pilly Peck(er)" on the NORML thread, there is a
cannibalistic element stretching through H&R today!
|12.19.07 @ 2:53PM|#
And so, after performing the unenviable task of perusing the PETA websites, my previous conclusion "PETA is a nutjob organization that deserves all of the mockery and derision that intelligent people can send their way." stands.
|12.19.07 @ 3:02PM|#
x,y,
You know you're losing an argument when you've basically
conceded the other peron's point and you're resorting to, "well
sure, it's hypocritical, but it's not salient
hypocrisy."
I'll have to take your word for that. I've spent the entire thread
stating that there isn't any hypocrisy. Do you want me to do it
again?
|12.19.07 @ 3:04PM|#
Episiarch,
The country has become considerably more sensitized to these
issues since Rudolph killed.
No, it hasn't. Does the fact that you can't manage to come up with
a relevant comparison, one which demonstrates that these terrorist
groups' behavior or influence are remotely comparable to that of
the animal right's movement suggest anything to you?
Also, I haven't expressed any admiration whatsoever for violent
acts, but for their press campaign.
Sulla|12.19.07 @ 3:06PM|#
Not to rain on anyone's "insects are animals, too" and
"animals are property" parades, but...
Imagine you are a farmer who grows some insect-pollinated crop, and
your next-door neighbor farmer happens to be the one on whose land
the honeybees reside. He didn't put them there, and let's say for
the sake of argument that they predate his ownership of the
neighboring property.
Are the bees "merely his property" to do with as he pleases, or are
they more like a river that runs through his and others' properties
and therefore have a more complicated relationship enmeshed with
the common interest? After all, your livelihood depends upon the
presence of the bees, which predate your neighbor's property
interest.
Making animals "merely property" does very little to solve some
ethical and legal questions any more than making sections of river
"merely property" did.
Are you using the term property in a legal sense? If so, I'm not
sure I understand your point. Wild animals (like the bees) are
ferae naturae and have no owner. Once someone has taken possession
of them, they become personal property. If the bees become your
neighbor's property, that might affect your livelihood, making it a
matter of human rights, not animal rights.
Different states have different laws, but AFAIK, navigable rivers
are under Federal jurisdiction and cannot be property.
Non-navigable rivers are generally considered to be part of the
real property through which they flow, and depending on which state
you are (Eastern v. Western is a somehwat usefl shorthand), other
users of the river may have rights to use the water (essentially
real property rights because they are "attached" to the
land).
Can an animal "trespass"? A bear that wanders onto your
property looking for food or out of curiosity is not your property.
On what grounds (say, for the sake of argument, it poses no threat
to your life or your property) could you shoot it?
Again, do you mean trespass in a legal sense? A wild animal is
outside the property/person framework of the common law and cannot
in any meaningful sense be said to trespass. In the absence of
anti-bear shooting laws, you need no legal justification to shoot
the bear, it is ferae naturae.
As an aside, I think part of the problem is that you have a lot of
consequentialist who are concerned about minimizing suffering,
arguing with others who subscribe to a different philosophy. As an
existentialist (more or less), I'm not really that interested in
the morality of the issue. As a lawyer, I'm more interested in the
justifications for legal restrictions on the treatment of
animals.
|12.19.07 @ 3:07PM|#
J sub D,
You will note the question is assiduously avoided. It appereas
to be be a never ending quest, without boundaries. Like
fairness.
Or liberty. Or economic growth. Lots of ideals are open-ended like
that - how much should we persue them? As much as we can.
Elemenope|12.19.07 @ 3:08PM|#
You know you're losing an argument when you've basically
conceded the other person's point and you're resorting to, "well
sure, it's hypocritical, but it's not salient
hypocrisy."
I disagree. Hypocrisy is universal to the human condition, and
accentuated in degree by the size and complexity of society and
modern life. To say that all men are hypocrites borders on an
infallible truism. So, the salience of the hypocrisy at issue (and
also, how intentional its character) is of paramount
importance in judging whether that hypocrisy blunts or damages any
ethical argument the person at issue is advancing.
Personally I couldn't give a damn out of whose mouth a particular
argument springs, or the contents of their character; my concern is
with the idea, and not the person who professes it, and so
hypocrisy for me matters next to nothing in arguments of this
sort.
Some people, however, get hung up on the personal habits of people
who have ideas and express them, and somehow associate the worth of
one with the quality of the other. That is, quite simply, stupid.
Assessing an idea is not like assessing a politician (who, one
hopes, is being chosen based not just on their ideas but also upon
their demonstrations of personal integrity and effective
decision-making skills).
Episiarch|12.19.07 @ 3:11PM|#
are remotely comparable to that of the animal right's
movement
I wasn't aware PETA represented all ARM's. In fact, my point was
that PETA is not someone you want to point to or admire.
Why you feel a need to defend cultists is beyond me.
Also, I haven't expressed any admiration whatsoever for violent
acts, but for their press campaign.
OK, considering that statement, let's try a better one:
As for Sinn Féin's polarization, the proof is in the blood pudding.
The country has become considerably more sensitized to these issues
since the IRA began its bombing run. Sometimes it's helpful to see
what "too far" looks like, and their very extremism has put issues
into the national consciousness that would not otherwise be
there.
x,y|12.19.07 @ 3:24PM|#
Elemenope,
I think we'll have to disagree about whether hypocrisy is important
in and of itself or whether the salience of hypocirsy is what
matters.
But even if I were to concede your point (which I don't), PETA is
being intellectually dishonest and stopping short exactly where
their members' beliefs would interfere with their day to day lives
(a little too convenient if you ask me). That's salient hypocrisy
to me.
|12.19.07 @ 3:31PM|#
Or liberty. Or economic growth. Lots of ideals are
open-ended like that - how much should we persue them? As much as
we can.
joe, people who are for liberty, economic growth, freedom don't shy
away from a definition of what they are for. Hell, if I ask some
left leaning statist, like you for example, ;-) to define fairness,
you would. In a heartbeat. PETA can't or won't define animal in the
term animal rights. Pathetic. You'd never let me get away without a
definition of terms. Nor should you.
Ron Mexico|12.19.07 @ 3:36PM|#
Episiarch - "Those dogs can smell anything. That's why you got to kick them in the throat."
|12.19.07 @ 3:45PM|#
Episiarch: I would like to answer your hypothetical question,
but not here or now. Neither of us seems willing to reveal a valid
email address online. Also curious to know whether you're the same
"Episiarch" who comments on another blog which is generally
contemptuous of this one, although both blogs share a core
interest.
Your move.
|12.19.07 @ 3:50PM|#
I'm just hoping this thread goes on long enough for Episiarch to use the phrase "fudge pudding."
|12.19.07 @ 3:52PM|#
Episiarch,
Nope, still not there.
country has become considerably more sensitized to these issues
since the IRA began its bombing run. No, it didn't.
Self-determination for the Irish was a huge issue before the IRA or
the Provos even existed.
Sometimes it's helpful to see what "too far" looks like, and
their very extremism has put issues into the national consciousness
that would not otherwise be there.
This would be ok if you were talking about Sinn Fein and its
political campaign, because that would be a fair comparison to the
political media campaigns of PETA. I would agree - Sinn Fein's hard
line was of great help in getting the Unionists to see the wisdom
of working with the SDLP.
|12.19.07 @ 3:54PM|#
J sub D,
I can't provide you with any more comprehensive definition of
fairness than Sweitzer's statement. Just as you can't delineate the
precise boundaries of a "prosperous society."
Episiarch|12.19.07 @ 3:57PM|#
Episiarch: I would like to answer your hypothetical
question, but not here or now. Neither of us seems willing to
reveal a valid email address online. Also curious to know whether
you're the same "Episiarch" who comments on another blog which is
generally contemptuous of this one, although both blogs share a
core interest.
Your move.
We're playing chess?
The only other blog I've commented on (and that's very, very
rarely) is Samizdata, a British libertarian site. So unless you're
talking about that...
Why can't you answer my question without an email address?
Episiarch|12.19.07 @ 4:00PM|#
joe, you can nitpick my cut-and-paste semi-jokes, or address the actual focus of those jokes: why would you support PETA when 1) there are much more reputable AR organizations out there, and 2) they are a cult of personality surrounding Ingrid Newkirk?
Episiarch|12.19.07 @ 4:04PM|#
Ron Mexico, finally, some appreciation.
"Getting it is easy. Filling it with illegal substances and sending
it across the border is not."
Episiarch|12.19.07 @ 4:07PM|#
Tonio, I just did a search and found someone posting as "episiarch" (lower case 'e') on Reddit. That is not me.
|12.19.07 @ 4:35PM|#
Is it OK to kill your horses to survive when you are trapped
in a cave in December in the Rockies?
Yes.
Is it OK to kill your fellow humans in the same
situation?
Assuming that all other food sources were exhausted, that the party
were near death, and that rescue was not imminent: Someone would
have to die. I would volunteer for "lunch detail" if I thought my
death would bring the greatest good.
x,y|12.19.07 @ 4:49PM|#
I would volunteer for "lunch detail" if I thought my death would bring the greatest good.
And I'd fight for your rib bones. Mmmmm. Ribs.
Episiarch|12.19.07 @ 4:54PM|#
And Tonio, what if no one voluteered? Would someone still have to die? Who chooses? Who kills? Who eats first? Who brought the BBQ sauce?
VM|12.19.07 @ 5:02PM|#
"Who brought the BBQ sauce?"
obviously not the Belgians.
oh yeah! bringing it 'round.
KELLY RIPPA!
SIV|12.19.07 @ 7:01PM|#
I'm late here so I'll just offer this link for no particular reason than it sounds like fun.
Kolohe|12.19.07 @ 8:31PM|#
PETA:Communists::Vegetarian Advocates:Trade Unionists.
While I still may disagree on some of the premises, the very
difference in degree is the difference between:
1) people whom I think have a few good points
2) people whom I have absolute antipathy for.
|12.19.07 @ 8:32PM|#
I can't provide you with any more comprehensive definition
of fairness than Sweitzer's statement. Just as you can't delineate
the precise boundaries of a "prosperous society."
joe, Precise boudaries for a adjective? Give me a
precise boundary for fast?
That said,
prosperous - adjective - enjoying vigorous and healthy growth :
flourishing.
animal - noun - should be even easier. Nouns usually do have
precise boundaries.
Where is the PETA rep when you need one?
|12.20.07 @ 12:17AM|#
Al Gore began to renovate his existing home before the
silly-season stories started being repeated in every
right-of-center rag on the intertubez.
But even with all his very expensive renovations (and who knows
what the total energy budget of them is, all in all), his mansion
will still have a huge carbon footprint.
Sorry, but where I come from, "one rule for thee and another for
me" is textbook hypocrisy.
|12.20.07 @ 11:30AM|#
I will never become a member of PETA because of this. This is
just tasteless and just goes to show you they are trying to keep
themselves in the spotlight. They know once this story is over they
will no longer be in the media. You already got everything you are
going to get from Vick and now to make fun of him is just
inappropriate.
I am an animal lover and believe Michael Vick got what he deserved
but this is just sickening. These people need to be prosecuted to
the fullest extent and rot in hell for this act. Doesn't this sound
familiar?
Miner Rights Support-Hose|12.21.07 @ 5:00AM|#
Mo', better sentences:
The nervous system works through a series of chemical
reactions, just like it does with plants.
The nervous system works through a series of plants?
I think responding to physical damage by protecting itself and
releasing an anesthetic shows that it's a coherent sentence, just a
different type.
The sentence releases an anesthetic? Well, it seems not to be
working.
These are great! Give us mo, Mo!
|12.21.07 @ 7:47PM|#
This thread may be dead, but just in case anyone is still reading, x,y was the only one who even made an attempt at meeting the challenge. The radical capacity argument, in my opinion, won't work though. One reason is that we will have to know why "being a member of a species with teh radical capacity to develop x" gives one moral weight. For example, it can be simply pointed out why "being someone who can reason" or "being someone who can feel pain" might be morally relevant. But "being a member of a species with a radical capacity to develop x" has to be shown to matter morally. Another reason is that I'm not sure it's "irrelevant" that some members of the class, being a member of the class with radical capacity to develop x" in fact have nil chance of developing x. Presumably, it is the x itself that deserves moral weight. If we have a class that will never be a part of x, then should e still give it moral weight? Should we give it weight because it happens to be a member of a class that usually develops x (the morally relevant quality)? Why?
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