Doggies and Demerol

PETA's Ingrid Newkirk broke her arm and told the sad tale of her injury thusly:

"Just as I was setting out to launch my new book, Let’s Have a Dog Party!, I met a wet floor and went splat, neatly snapping the bones in my wrist. Ooh, the pain! Thank goodness for IV drips."

The hypocrisy squad at The Center for Consumer Freedom is on Newkirk like white on rice:

We agree that IV (intravenous) drips of painkillers are a good thing. And we don’t know which drug she was on, assuming it didn’t come from PETA’s “Let's Have a Dog Party!” tackle box. But the most commonly prescribed IV painkillers, fentanyl and meperidine (Demerol), have both been extensively tested on animals.

In fact, the IV drip mechanism itself was tested on several species of animals during the 1930s, during the development of techniques for surgical anaesthesia.

The kicker:

Ingrid Newkirk, you may recall, once told a reporter that “even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.” Fair enough. But there’s a big difference between talking the talk and walking the walk.

Ron Bailey-style disclosure: My husband used to work for the Center for Consumer Freedom.

Addition disclosure: I, too, love IV Demerol.

Comments

Episiarch | November 9, 2007, 3:20pm | #

I, too, love IV Demerol

Who doesn't? IV Valium is pretty rockin' too.

As for Newkirk and company, Penn & Teller's Bullshit! episode on PETA is a classic, and they point out at least one senior PETA member who is diabetic and uses insulin (of course) which comes from...animals. Her response? "I need it to continue the fight for animal rights."

Classic.

sixstring | November 9, 2007, 3:23pm | #

What if it led to cure of AIDS in monkeys?

Kwix | November 9, 2007, 3:25pm | #

PETA was just here locally protesting the consumption of Ben Stein's favorite food, Wild Alaska Seafood™. Well, actually it was a protest against eating all fish, wild or not. I imagine that even if fish were the only readily available source of protein, say on a South Pacific Island, PETA would demand that people stop eating it. They crack me up I tell you what.

Episiarch | November 9, 2007, 3:27pm | #

PETA offered the town of Fishkill, NY $25,000 to change its name. Kill is dutch for river/stream. There are tons of Something-kill towns in NY, but this one started with fish, so PETA thought it was...bad?

This is not a joke, they really did this.

Cesar | November 9, 2007, 3:28pm | #

Man, the best combo I ever had was IV Valium, IV Demerol, and laughing gas when I got my wisdom teeth removed. What was even cooler was the ceiling in the dentists office was painted like the sky. Whee!

joe | November 9, 2007, 3:31pm | #

That's about as hypocritical as people living on land stolen from Native Americans, who complain about theft and eminent domain.

You know, not at all. Lots of things happened in the past.

Which is not to say that CCF doesn't have a point, or even that they didn't land a solid punch here. But the charge of hypocrisy doesn't seem appropriate. I've yet to hear anyone from PETA say we need to give up all goods and practices that were at any time dependent on animal testing or labor for their discovery.

ed | November 9, 2007, 3:31pm | #

PETA is a joke, and I happily worked them into a little vid I made a while ago. Not for the squeamish, but if you like lamb...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsj2LmBCpuQ

joe | November 9, 2007, 3:32pm | #

Has the City of New York changed the name of the Fresh Kills Landfill?

That's where they brought the "material" from Ground Zero, and some people found the name unfortunate.

Steve Verdon | November 9, 2007, 3:33pm | #

I hate PETA and Newkirk in particular. She and her organization, favor destroying an entire breed of dogs. Their reasoning, it is the most abused breed...so to save you wipe it out. Nevermind all the dogs in homes where the dog is loved and part of the family. Hopefully next time Newkirk will snap her neck and put herself out of our misery.

Episiarch | November 9, 2007, 3:34pm | #

Cesar, I was in the hospital after an operation and was on a self-administered morphine drip, the kind where you can give yourself more up to a certain point. The last day I had it, I wasn't in much pain anyway so I decided to amuse myself--I maxed it out (as much as it would allow me) for several hours.

I was fucking high for quite a while. My kind of fun.

Steve Verdon | November 9, 2007, 3:34pm | #

Sorry,

...so to save you wipe it out.

should read as

...so to save it you wipe it out.

Episiarch | November 9, 2007, 3:37pm | #

Has the City of New York changed the name of the Fresh Kills Landfill?

Nope. It's sort of a fixture, and changing it would be a pain in the ass just to appease some people who can't wrap their heads around "kill = river in Dutch".

Dan T. | November 9, 2007, 3:37pm | #

That's about as hypocritical as people living on land stolen from Native Americans, who complain about theft and eminent domain.

Or a libertarian magazine being published on the Internet, which was developed by the US government who stole money from the people at gunpoint to fund it.

joe, at the pharmacy, after his wisdom teeth came out | November 9, 2007, 3:37pm | #

Kun yoo put a rush on th' percoshet?

Zach | November 9, 2007, 3:38pm | #

I got IV valium and IV demoral for getting a cyst removed and It is definatly the best drug combo on the planet.

joe | November 9, 2007, 3:39pm | #

Or a libertarian magazine being published on the Internet, which was developed by the US government who stole money from the people at gunpoint to fund it.

Hmm, so that means the proper response for PETA would be, "They would have developed the IV faster, better, and more ethically if there was no animal testing."

Tacos mmm... | November 9, 2007, 3:41pm | #

Man, the best combo I ever had was IV Valium, IV Demerol, and laughing gas when I got my wisdom teeth removed. What was even cooler was the ceiling in the dentists office was painted like the sky. Whee!

I got the same combo. I only remember a few seconds after it kicked it, but those seconds were great.

Lamar | November 9, 2007, 3:48pm | #

For a second I though, cool, new Dwarves album. Then I looked closer and didn't see a naked midget, or any hot boobies. I guess it isn't KMW's fault I jumped to conclusions.

tijjer | November 9, 2007, 3:49pm | #

While hypocracy is often hilarious, it doesn't make the hypocrite's position wrong.

I mean, in this bitch's case there are plenty of other, better things to present as a counterargument to her organization's insane ramblings than simple hypocracy.

Cesar | November 9, 2007, 3:50pm | #

I got the same combo. I only remember a few seconds after it kicked it, but those seconds were great.

I don't remember much either, but apparently my inhibitions were very lowered because the attractive dental hygenist told me i started hitting on her right before I went to sleep.

Dan T. | November 9, 2007, 3:51pm | #

And is Ingrid Newkirk really hypocritical here, or has she simply discovered that it's easier to be idealistic about something when you're not personally involved?

dhex | November 9, 2007, 3:51pm | #

man i was behind a lady at the drugstore yesterday who was all hells of bent out of shape over some valium. she had the container open before she got out the door.

man that shit must be tasty.

Art-P.O.G. | November 9, 2007, 3:52pm | #

That's not a good photo of Ms. Newkirk. She looks hateful or something.

That's about as hypocritical as people living on land stolen from Native Americans, who complain about theft and eminent domain.

(Re-seizing moral high ground) Not all of our ancestors came here willingly, you know.

Jonathan Hohensee | November 9, 2007, 3:53pm | #

PETA offered the town of Fishkill, NY $25,000 to change its name. Kill is dutch for river/stream. There are tons of Something-kill towns in NY, but this one started with fish, so PETA thought it was...bad?
I doubt they really where offended by it, if one thing Peta is the master at, it's self-promotion.

Name withheld | November 9, 2007, 3:53pm | #

Man, the best combo I ever had was IV Valium, IV Demerol, and laughing gas when I got my wisdom teeth removed. What was even cooler was the ceiling in the dentists office was painted like the sky. Whee!

Valium, codeine and pot is pretty good.

Also Xanax, Oxycodone, Pseudoephedrine and Acid.

Dan T. | November 9, 2007, 3:54pm | #

KMW writes:

Addition disclosure: I, too, love IV Demerol.

This explains a lot.

Scott | November 9, 2007, 3:57pm | #

Or a libertarian magazine being published on the Internet, which was developed by the US government who stole money from the people at gunpoint to fund it.

Or a foreign socialist condemning the US govt on the internet, or a pacifist condemning the military on the internet (what do you think the 'D' in DARPA stands for?).

Why are leftists seemingly immune from the same complaint they make against us? Is it because the 'net was supposedly created by "government" and they support "government", so everything is peachy?

JasonC | November 9, 2007, 3:57pm | #

Or a libertarian magazine being published on the Internet, which was developed by the US government who stole money from the people at gunpoint to fund it.

In your head, Dan, did that sound like a clever rejoinder? I mean, were you thinking "oh boy, I sure got dem libertarians real good with this one"?
If so, then please provide a link to any serious person that thinks libertarians should remove themselves from society since it's been tainted by government intervention.

Episiarch | November 9, 2007, 3:59pm | #

Valium, codeine and pot is pretty good.

Also Xanax, Oxycodone, Pseudoephedrine and Acid.

Nice. One thing that is big fun is to take a 10mg Valium (Xanax won't do, it's too "clean") and then pound a 6-pack or 2 40's over the course of half an hour. Then you sit back and float for a while.

I have a friend who, every night after work, would have 1) a Vicodin ES, 2) a Valium or Xanax, 3) smoke a few joints, 4) drink a few beers, and 5) smoke several cigarettes.

Dan T. | November 9, 2007, 4:05pm | #

In your head, Dan, did that sound like a clever rejoinder? I mean, were you thinking "oh boy, I sure got dem libertarians real good with this one"?

The whole point of the original post was "oh boy, we sure got dem animal rights people real good with this one".

Joe and I were just pointing out that few of us are immune.

Lamar | November 9, 2007, 4:14pm | #

"Addition disclosure: I, too, love IV Demerol.

This explains a lot."

I think she means metaphorically.

J sub D | November 9, 2007, 4:17pm | #

I've yet to hear anyone from PETA say we need to give up all goods and practices that were at any time dependent on animal testing or labor for their discovery.

No, they just want to shut down all future advances that are dependeant on animal testing, which is equally stupid.

T. Nad | November 9, 2007, 4:20pm | #

You know that feeling you get when your annoying neighbor lets his dog back one out in your yard and you discover it on your way to get the paper? That's how I feel every time I read one of these threads and see a post from Dan T.

Only the stench from Dan T. is worse than from the fresh steamer because at least you can scoop it up and return it to your neighbor's yard where it belongs. Dan T.'s shitting on H&R's yard, by way of contrast, is permanent the only solution is to walk on by and plug your nose.

Steve Verdon | November 9, 2007, 4:22pm | #

The problem Dan (and Joe) is that not all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists. Some acknowledge that in some instances government is a necessary evil.

J sub D | November 9, 2007, 4:23pm | #

I agree that PETAs position on animal testing is not inconsistent with enjoying the benifits of past animal testing. If Josef Mengele's evil experiments had produced something that was medically valuable, we'd be fools not to use that knowledge. I'm still against imprisoning innocent peoiple and torturing them to advance human knowledge.

JasonC | November 9, 2007, 4:24pm | #

Dan T -
And I am pointing out that your counter-example makes no sense. Since libertarians do not advocate ridding themselves of any technology whose development was initiated by government funding, it is not hypocritical to use the internet.
p.s. Please note that I think the original blog post is stupid so this is not a defense of anything written there.

barry payne_economist | November 9, 2007, 4:26pm | #

CAMERA PROOF PRODUCTS

In competition with each other, some animal testing facilities, slaughter houses and horse haulers-to-slaughter have started video recording their activities in detail for website publication.

"We believe in a humane, painless death and are willing to prove it with our cameras" said Roy Ripple of Roy's Put 'Em Down Easy.

All that jerking and stuff you see down the processing line is just reflexes ... I never saw one's heart still beetin after it fell out ...

Jim Joyride, of Alive When We Arrive, said "Look, it don't hurt them horses a bit to stand on their knees for 12 hours ... they's already half-dead anyway ... we're doin 'em a favor by not lettin 'em starve.

Yes sir, we're glad to put the cameras on 'em ... that also proves to our client that we keep 'em "breathing fresh" right up to the last minute ... ain't worth nuttin dead, even cost us to dump 'em ... you know there's people that would be starvin if they couldn't eat our horses ..."

From Doby Dimples of Zero-Defect Drugs, an animal testing facility that specializes in vivisection and inflammation reactions, comes the comment, "How many penned animals with open wounds, red-eye infections and partial brains do YOU think is worth saving a HUNNERT THOUSAND CHILREN FROM DYING WITH SKIN CREAM RASH you scum communist-terrorists guerillas? We're putting up CAMERAS with a REAL ZOOM LENS to PROVE our animals don't suffer by god.

Use only CAMERA-PROOFSAFE-PRODUCTS from Roy, Jim and Doby. It's the American Way.

J sub D | November 9, 2007, 4:26pm | #

In my 4:23pm post I spelled benefits as it should be spelled (benifits), not as is generally accepted. ;-)

Pro Libertate | November 9, 2007, 4:33pm | #

J sub D,

Rather than apologize, go further: binifits.

Misspelling words makes you appear idiotic. Inventing new words is a sign of genius.

dhex | November 9, 2007, 4:33pm | #

I have a friend who, every night after work, would have 1) a Vicodin ES, 2) a Valium or Xanax, 3) smoke a few joints, 4) drink a few beers, and 5) smoke several cigarettes.

jesus fucking christ.

that sounds like an ok vacation (or not i don't mix cns depressants myself being way into breathing) but as a regular post job job that seems like hell on earth.

J sub D | November 9, 2007, 4:42pm | #

Rather than apologize, go further: binifits.

Misspelling words makes you appear idiotic. Inventing new words is a sign of genius.

PL, You'll note I wasn't apologizing. Rather, I was being obstinate. Like the proud, freedom loving American that I am.

Episiarch | November 9, 2007, 4:43pm | #

that sounds like an ok vacation (or not i don't mix cns depressants myself being way into breathing) but as a regular post job job that seems like hell on earth.

He's a trooper, and enjoys it a lot while watching pro wrestling (I'm assuming that the drugs make it more comprehensible). Now, when he's coked up, that's when he seems not to be really enjoying himself, though he seems to want it pretty bad.

J sub D | November 9, 2007, 4:44pm | #

Tho binifits iz an improovment.

Pro Libertate | November 9, 2007, 4:54pm | #

J sub D,

True, but you're assuming that I actually read your post, rather than casually used it to make a joke in total disregard of your meaning. At least my posting ran to your binifit.

Say, that word is easier to type, too.

Chris S | November 9, 2007, 5:00pm | #

PETA are unethical scum using the "poor animals" to line their pockets and enhance their lifestyles.

J sub D | November 9, 2007, 5:15pm | #

True, but you're assuming that I actually read your post, rather than casually used it to make a joke in total disregard of your meaning.

I'm shattered. :-(

J sub D | November 9, 2007, 5:18pm | #

Now, when he's coked up, that's when he seems not to be really enjoying himself, though he seems to want it pretty bad.

I know a crackhead like that. Instant paranoia upon use. Like angry drunks, I'll never understand why they do it. They never have any fun.

J sub D | November 9, 2007, 5:24pm | #

Pro Libertate, I've just come to the conclusion that we should allow intelligent, not prodigal, 10 year olds to redefine how we spell. In a generation it would save millions of post spelling test tears annually.

Frank Booth | November 9, 2007, 5:26pm | #

"Zach | November 9, 2007, 3:38pm | #
I got IV valium and IV demoral for getting a cyst removed and It is definatly the best drug combo on the planet."

I prefer MDMA + GHB + 5-meo-dipt +diacetyl morphine.

Good times.

dangerman | November 9, 2007, 5:34pm | #

Only the stench from Dan T. is worse than from the fresh steamer because at least you can scoop it up and return it to your neighbor's yard where it belongs. Dan T.'s shitting on H&R's yard, by way of contrast, is permanent the only solution is to walk on by and plug your nose.

Actually, the only solution is the Indisputably Non-Coercive Idiot Filter.

John-David | November 9, 2007, 5:34pm | #

Or a libertarian magazine being published on the Internet, which was developed by the US government who stole money from the people at gunpoint to fund it.

Slam dunk!

Oh, wait.

The "internet" you are referring to is the World Wide Web, created independent of the U.S. government by Sir Tim Berners-Lee. The tubes we send our message through were laid down by private companies, and we voluntarily pay for our access to private ISPs. The protocol we use for posting and reading messages is HTTP, which was developed by W3C, headed by Sir Berners-Lee. The language used for display of web pages (HTML) and the system we use to navigate web pages (URL) were also developed by W3C. ARPAnet and the WWW are not even close to the same thing, but it's always fun watching people pretend that they are.

Pro Libertate | November 9, 2007, 5:36pm | #

J sub D,

I like that concept in theory, but the charm of English is that it's impossible for most people to consistently spell words correctly. Besides, kids' phonetic spelling often sucks even as phonetic spelling.

Doctor Duck | November 9, 2007, 5:40pm | #

Will no one speak up for Versed?

Not for you -- for her.

dangerman | November 9, 2007, 5:41pm | #

I like that concept in theory, but the charm of English is that it's impossible for most people to consistently spell words correctly. Besides, kids' phonetic spelling often sucks even as phonetic spelling.

Firefox spell check wins the thread.

Art-P.O.G. | November 9, 2007, 5:41pm | #

If she'd drink some milk, she'd probably not break her wrist so easily.

Shawn | November 9, 2007, 5:42pm | #

"I have a friend who, every night after work, would have 1) a Vicodin ES, 2) a Valium or Xanax, 3) smoke a few joints, 4) drink a few beers, and 5) smoke several cigarettes."

Doesn't he know that cigarettes are evil?

RON BAILEY DISCLOSURE ACOLYTE | November 9, 2007, 5:50pm | #

YOUR DISCLOSURES DO NOT HOLD A CANDLE TO THE ALL ENCOMPASSING DISCLOSURIFFIC SPLENDOR OF RONS MASTERPIECES OF DISCLOSURATION

Mary Beth Sweetland, Vice-President of PETA | November 9, 2007, 5:51pm | #

"I'm an insulin-dependent diabetic. Twice a day I take synthetically manufactured insulin that still contains some animal products -- and I have no qualms about it ... I'm not going to take the chance of killing myself by not taking insulin. I don't see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals."
--Glamour, January 1990

Pro Libertate | November 9, 2007, 5:57pm | #

I need my strength to fight for my carnivoric rights.

kelley | November 9, 2007, 6:00pm | #

Broken wrist? Do we have a comment yet from Stephen Colbert?

Brian Courts | November 9, 2007, 6:20pm | #

God, it's been six months since I've been to this cesspool of a site and I can't say I've missed it.

Andy, meet Edward. Maybe you two can be some kind of Odysseian support system for each other to help resist the Siren song that apparently is H&R for you two. Perhaps take turns lashing each other to the bed-post while the other, blindfolded, scrolls through the posts and comments.

Oh and to everyone else, I think that counts as a "Drink!"

lunchstealer | November 9, 2007, 6:20pm | #

She and her organization, favor destroying an entire breed of dogs.

They prefer to call it "lovestermination".

DrDGGJr | November 9, 2007, 7:00pm | #

Is it really all that bad if the doctors were loading the dogs with euphoric painkillers? You'd think PETA would support something like that.

Them dogs was just CHILLIN'!

Cesar | November 9, 2007, 7:05pm | #

Ok, IV demerol, IV valium, and laughing gas is the best legal drug combination that I've ever had. Not that I know anything at all about politically incorrect illegal drugs, of course. Nothing at all, no sir! I'm the DARE generation, so they saved me!

Mr. Nice Guy | November 9, 2007, 7:25pm | #

I'm not sure I get why Dan and Joe's joke are not supposed to stick (I loved it).

Extreme animal rights activists says it is wrong to develop medecine through animal testing, but still uses said medecine.

Extreme libertarian says it is wrong to develop technology via government assistance, yet still uses said technology.

It would be anal and silly to call such people for their "hypocrisy" right? And I think that was joe and DanT's point...

It's typical to take an extreme liberal version of some movement and say "look how silly this" to try to discredit the whole idea or movement. It's like trying to discredit anti-racism by pointing to Jim Jones, or libertarians by pointing to some militia printing its own money in Montana or preparing to do battle with black helicopters from the UN. Since KMW appreciates using her sharp wit to deflate such nonsense I will look forward to her application of it to purveyors more close to home...

Paco | November 9, 2007, 7:27pm | #

J sub D: I agree that PETAs position on animal testing is not inconsistent with enjoying the benifits of past animal testing. If Josef Mengele's evil experiments had produced something that was medically valuable, we'd be fools not to use that knowledge. I'm still against imprisoning innocent people and torturing them to advance human knowledge.

You mean this:
http://www.westpacmarine.com/samples/hypothermia_chart.asp

NAZI: How long does it take for someone to die from hypothermia?
NAZI Scientist: I don’t know. We have some Jews, lets find out!

J sub D | November 9, 2007, 7:29pm | #

"Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it"

andy, you moral paragon, you. How do you feel about this statement?

isildur | November 9, 2007, 7:30pm | #

"Perhaps take turns lashing each other to the bed-post while the other, blindfolded, scrolls through the posts and comments."

hawt!

J sub D | November 9, 2007, 7:33pm | #

Paco - yes, just like that. Is that data based on Nazi human experimentation? I didn't know. As an ex-sailor I'm aware of the usefulness of the info.

Paco | November 9, 2007, 7:33pm | #

If one of you fine a pre 1945 hypothermia chart then I'll be Kyle to your Cartman.

J sub D | November 9, 2007, 7:36pm | #

Paco -

'nuff said.

John-David | November 9, 2007, 7:36pm | #

Same andy?

God, is Cindy Sheehan one homely-ass bitch. You think the left could have gotten a cuter (not to mention younger) postergirl for their movement, not to mention a less hysterical one.

J sub D | November 9, 2007, 7:46pm | #

Andy, moral paragon -
Are you a vegan?
Do you use pesticides?
Do you take antibiotics?
Is it moral to kill the rabbit ruining you vegetable garden?
Is it moral to modify destroy the local environment so you can even have a vegetable garden?
When a mouse gets into your dwelling, do you kill it?
How about a cockroach?
Would you kill head lice on your child?

Feel free to enligten this marally bereft individual by answer the prvious questions.

If any of the answers is NO, explain why that is morally different than me shooting dogs to find new trauma treatments. Bet you don't respond, fuckin' coward.

J sub D | November 9, 2007, 8:11pm | #

PETSA - People for the Ethical Treatment of Some Animals. You loons should try some truth in advertising.

The Site | November 9, 2007, 8:12pm | #

God, it's been six months since I've been to this cesspool of a site and I can't say I've missed it.

We can't say we've missed you, either.

smartass sob | November 9, 2007, 8:23pm | #

I don't see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals.

But you don't need to fight for the rights of animals. Therefore: You don't need to live! :-)

Matt | November 9, 2007, 8:28pm | #

There's a pretty substantial difference between killing dogs and killing bacteria.

Obviously, though, you're just interested in finding the slimmest of justifications for what you're already doing, so, you know, don't expect people to engage you on it. Blah blah, PETA's wacky, ergo there can't possibly be any moral problems with animal testing, factory farming, the fur industry, meat eating, etc. I'm sure you think you're real clever, but most of us who are even vaguely aware of the issues have heard it all before...

smartass sob | November 9, 2007, 8:37pm | #

There's a pretty substantial difference between killing dogs and killing bacteria.

Yes, there certainly is. The last time I checked, admittedly many years ago, bacteria were considered members of the Plant Kingdom rather than the Animal Kingdom.

But even if one were speaking of dogs and insects, what would that substantial difference be? They are both equally members of the Animal Kingdom.

Bobster | November 9, 2007, 8:37pm | #

andy,

Hit and Run isn't a siren's song to me. I literally haven't been on here in months. But today I clicked on a reddit link inadvertently and ended up here. And there's still the same old gang of idiots defending animal abuse and environmental destruction. How anyone could think that relying on advances made from past animal abuse is "just as stupid" as continuing animal abuse in the name of "science." You want those meds tested? Take them yourself.

The animals are Non-player-characters (NPC's) so they can be used up with no moral loss die roll.

If my family had to cross a mine field I would send the dog across first. He is a NPC an understands his role.

(D&D rules rule)

Jamie Kelly | November 9, 2007, 8:41pm | #

Welcome back, Andy!
You know, life here just isn't the same without some moral-equivalizing pussy boy to make us all remember why we hate losers like yourself!
Thanks!

Bobster | November 9, 2007, 8:43pm | #

Andy will grow huge due to his constant feeding. Trolls have good hit die so watch out.

Mr. Nice Guy | November 9, 2007, 8:44pm | #

"But even if one were speaking of dogs and insects, what would that substantial difference be? They are both equally members of the Animal Kingdom."
Well sob, what would the difference be between a human and a dog then? They are both in the Animal Kingdon btw.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal

Bobster | November 9, 2007, 8:44pm | #

And they regenerate to boot!

smartass sob | November 9, 2007, 8:51pm | #

Well sob, what would the difference be between a human and a dog then?

With some humans none whatsoever. :-)

Bobster | November 9, 2007, 8:54pm | #

Well sob, what would the difference be between a human and a dog then?

MOST humans won't drink from the toilet while wagging their tails?

Mr. Nice Guy | November 9, 2007, 8:57pm | #

"If any of the answers is NO, explain why that is morally different than me shooting dogs to find new trauma treatments. Bet you don't respond, fuckin' coward."
Well S sub D I might argue that there is a big difference between the bug killed by a pesticide and the dog. I might say that biologists actually think there is a huge difference between the two (which is actually WHY they do trauma tests on dogs and not aphids for example).
I might say there is a huge difference between the kind of pain an animal goes through in some expermintation and what could go on through humane farming.

The problem with your reasoning is you assume that all animal welfare folks think alike: that we are all grungy granola munching folks worrying about exploitation of silk worms. That is the only picture that conservative and libertarian think tanks, whose funders have an interest in marginalizing animal rights and/or animal welfare, put forward of such folks. But c'mon, certianly you are smart enough to get out there, do the work, and read some animal rights and welfare books, talk to ome folks, etc..Don't be led by the nose so easily my friend!

If you did that you would find that most animal rights folks do NOT hold the belief that because something is alive it must have the right to vote or something. The position of animal rights and welfare folks is actually easily summed up, the infliction of pain on any creature is wrong to the extent that the creature
1. can experience pain
or
2. has some reasoning capacity
(I say "or" because you have some, more utilitarian folks like P. Singer who ground the right in capacity for pain, and others such as T. Regan or Wise who ground it in rationality).

A common attack on animal rights folks is "what about plants, or lice etc". But it's plain that there is a vast difference in the ability to feel pain of a dog and a plant or louse. If our views are grounded in the above then this is strictly no problem...

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: show me the morally relevant difference between a human infant that is terminally ill (and therefore will not ever reach a state of "reason") and a pig that would make it OK to torture the latter but not the former. Neither can reason, contract, understand rights/obligaitons, both can feel pain, etc...

Mr. Nice Guy | November 9, 2007, 9:02pm | #

BTW-there are usually some H&R posters who, like bacteria, cannot reason (take a shot), so I will help save time by saying that obviously my challenge demonstrates that I think BOTH torturing the infant and the pig is immoral, not that the pig is worth more than the infant. Perhaps there are animal rights folks who believe animal life is somehow "better" or more sacred than human, but these are sentimentalists and not considered serious in the intellectual movement (just like there are probably "libertarians" who think government is bad because it helps black people, but such people are not considered serious libertarian thinkers, and it would be amazingly stupid to put such folks up to make fun of serious libertarian ideas).

brotherben | November 9, 2007, 9:05pm | #

Well DUH! The difference is that god gave us humans dominion over the animals.
(removes tongue from cheek and steps out of the line of fire)

Bobster | November 9, 2007, 9:09pm | #

Needless pain. Pain for no reason other than pain. Sucks. No argument. But.....

If I have to deliver pain in order to figure something out that may benefit me or mine later, I will deliver such pain to a very smart dog before I deliver it to a stupid retarded human. Call me an ass. I can take it.

Bobster | November 9, 2007, 9:10pm | #

(Don't call me an ass. I was joking. I am very sensitive.)

Jim Walsh | November 9, 2007, 9:12pm | #

I prefer the way Dennis Miller put it: in the Great Evolutionary Battle Of The Bands, homo sapiens rocks the hardest.

(BTW: Ain't it funny, you hear about the PETA gang splattering blood on ladies wearing fur. Yet, leather is every bit as "dead" as fur. How come you never see Newkirk, et al spreading the claret around biker bars...)

Matt | November 9, 2007, 9:13pm | #

Yes, there certainly is. The last time I checked, admittedly many years ago, bacteria were considered members of the Plant Kingdom rather than the Animal Kingdom.

Thanks, but I was responding to the previous poster's questions regarding antibiotics. Presumably the parallel he was drawing was between killing bacteria with antibiotics and killing dogs for testing.

ed | November 9, 2007, 9:15pm | #

It always boils down to whether humans are more important than animals. And, of course, this presupposes the assumption that one has the intellectual capacity to define "important". Only a sadist would advocate the torturing of animals for sport or just for the hell of it. Most of us (I guess) would rather have at our disposal a nice, fuzzy and cozy means of furthering scientific inquiry without the necessity of sacrificing animals to our selfish means, and we are and always have been working toward that end. So...patience. We'll get there. And...so sorry, Fluffy. It had to be done. Nothing personal.

Mr. Nice Guy | November 9, 2007, 9:20pm | #

I wouldn't call you an ass Bobster. I'd say you are human. I would point out to you that the animal rights activist (at least any serious one) would harm NEITHER the very smart dog or the stupid retarded human, even if it were necessary to "figure something out that may benefit me or mine later." That is, of course, the nature of holding a deontological view of ethics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics
The funny thing here is, of course, that libertarianism seems pretty heavy into rights (and deonotlogical ones at that), just like the animal rights movement. But of course for most people libertarianism is about hating that government _____ down the road!!!

brotherben | November 9, 2007, 9:22pm | #

You ruin a rich broads fur and she's gonna get a new one. That means more dead rodents. Therefore PETA supports the fur trade.

smartass sob | November 9, 2007, 9:25pm | #

BTW-there are usually some H&R posters who, like bacteria, cannot reason

Some of us are smart enough to know that one cannnot reason from the particular to the general. Take your example of the terminally ill infant - not all infants are terminally ill and therefore prevented from reaching their potential - most will. It is a fallacy to try to draw broad conclusions based on only one or two examples.

Fluffy The Cat | November 9, 2007, 9:28pm | #

See me. Feeeel me. Touch me. Heeeel me.

smartass sob | November 9, 2007, 9:33pm | #

Look. If animals don't have any rights when dealing with each other (and apparently they don't,) why do they have them in their dealings with humans? Before going on about animal rights perhaps someone would like to estaablish why humans have rights in their dealings with each other>

smartass sob | November 9, 2007, 9:37pm | #

Heeeel me.

It's heal, Fluffy. When we said heel we were speaking to Fido.

Bobster | November 9, 2007, 9:37pm | #

@Mr. Nice Guy
Thanks for not calling me an ass. I get enough of that from my wife.

If you and your family had to cross a mine field to escape certain death how would you cross? Would you draw straws? Would you not cross the field and all die together? Would you send your dumb ass son across? Would you send your supersmart dog across?

Bobster | November 9, 2007, 9:42pm | #

@smartass SOB
Animals do have rights when dealing with each other. Those with big teeth, long horns and body mass get the rights. All others have the 'right' to run away. (Humans win this hands down with long teeth.)

ed | November 9, 2007, 9:45pm | #

smartass sob cuts to the quick and scores!

Does a gazelle have the right not to be eaten by a lion? Does a penguin have the right not to be tortured at length by a leopard seal before finally (and mercifully) being devoured by said seal? No.

As stated previously, we humans have morality and ethics. It's what separates us from the lower life forms. So we are rightly disgusted by wanton abuse and torture. But we value human life above that of the lesser creatures, and we act accordingly and according to our nature as the bad-ass rulers of the planet.

Brian Courts | November 9, 2007, 9:47pm | #

andy,

How does this,

As libertarians you're all ostensibly about consent. If a human wants to consent to be a ginuea pig for some medical or scientific experiment then he or she is more than welcome. But nonhumans, being nonconsenting actors, should not be used in your experiments any more than a person should be used to pick my cotton against his will.

square with this,

I have nothing against hunting or fishing as long as it's done sustainably and humanely.

If non-consent is the issue in medical experiments, why is it not equally the issue in hunting or fishing? Clearly the nonhuman has no more given its consent to be shot and killed for food than it has to be used experimentally in an effort to save human lives. It seems to me that either consent matters or it doesn't in every context so how do you justify picking and choosing when it is important and when it can be ignored?

For the record, I think animals, primarily to the extent they can have awareness of pain or suffering (which we can't be sure of at this point, but we can at least attempt to infer it from the complexity of the brain of the animal), do have some moral standing that must be considered. (that, for me, is the basis for the huge moral distinction between killing a cockroach and a great ape, by the way). However, even the highest moral standing of the animals are well below that of a human.

Fluffy The Cat | November 9, 2007, 9:48pm | #

estaablish

We cats spell it: "establish," smartass sob.

The lambs spell it your way. Baaaaaa.

Bobster | November 9, 2007, 9:53pm | #

If any animal (other than human of course) picks up a firearm and says "let's kill the humans" you can be sure they are on the short list of the endangered species. Eat them while you can.

Mr. Nice Guy | November 9, 2007, 10:04pm | #

sob
Uhh, that's not reasoning from the particular to the general. The class of "infants with a terminal illness" is a class (and they do exist, sadly). Can we torture members of that class (of course we CAN, just like we CAN torture pigs, but of course I mean can we do that and be acting morally, I'm assuming we all want to act morally)? I'd say no, because it causes the infant pain and the infant has some small reasoning power and autonomy that should be respected. But, I'd have to say that the pig shares these qualities. Btw-these are the qualities that I think gives humans (or anything that possesses them) rights.

ed and sob- it does not help to say "hey, animals violate each others rights, so we don't have to respect their rights." Of course, children violate each others rights all the time, but that does not give me the right to pick one up and punt it just to see how far it will go, or to shoot it in the head to see what a trauma wound looks like...

Kenny | November 9, 2007, 10:06pm | #

paco and J sub D-
probably day late and dollar short on this (and perhaps missing the joke and/or context again)

The West Marine data is probably a summary of research such as here and here. The US, Canadian, British, Norwegian, etc Coast Guards (or equivalents) have been pulling people out of freezing water for decades (before and after WWII). So data has been collected on individuals who were sucessfully (and unsucessfully) treated. The same data has been collected on homeless people who have been hospitalized during cold snaps. You don't need to be a Nazi to have be able to collect data on human subjects, just collect the data that is already there.

Again, sorry if I'm missing the point.

Mr. Nice Guy | November 9, 2007, 10:10pm | #

Bobster
Yeah, that seems to be what wives are for...

I'm assuming in your example that I have a kid that is so severely and permanently retarded that it has the reasoning ability, sentience, etc., of my dog. Otherwise I would answer this question just like you would, since a normal kid has more autonomy to respect and probably more capacity to feel pain (at least to be 'scarred' by it) than the dog then I would (sadly) send the dog of course. But let's grant them equality in what I am proposing are the morally relevant qualities. What I WOULD do is probably again send the dog, but what would BE RIGHT (one is a empirical question, the other a normative question) could go either way. Hey, I'm human. In such a case I'd probably prefer my own kind, but it would not be morally justifiable. It would kind of be like "I had this feeling to send the dog." And to be honest, that's the best reason I've heard people give when asked why the kid is prefered over the dog. I actually think its the best answer possible because animal rights/welfare is the correct view.

Bobster | November 9, 2007, 10:29pm | #

Mr. Nice Guy.

Every damn one of them...nah maybe not. (She is watching over my shoulder.)

Animal rights are great until a human's rights come in to play. It is difficult to say otherwise.

Mark T | November 9, 2007, 10:43pm | #

Well sob, what would the difference be between a human and a dog then?

If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man.

smartass sob | November 9, 2007, 10:46pm | #

estaablish

We cats spell it: "establish," smartass sob.

The lambs spell it your way. Baaaaaa.


But...but Fluffy, estaablish and establish both mean the same thing; heel on the other paw,..er, hand does not mean the same as heal. Now be a good kitty and quit trying to spray me. :-)

smartass sob | November 9, 2007, 11:05pm | #

does not mean we hold a higher moral position

Humans hold the only moral position. So far as is known we are the only creatures capable of considering an action to be moral or immoral. We are the only ones capable of free will or moral choice. And before you try to tell me that there is no such thing as free will, let me remind you that without that the concept of morality makes no sense whatever.

smartass sob | November 9, 2007, 11:15pm | #

sob
Uhh, that's not reasoning from the particular to the general. The class of "infants with a terminal illness" is a class (and they do exist, sadly).

If, as I thought you were doing, you try to draw conclusions from the smaller class (of terminally ill infants) and apply them to the much larger class of all infants, then it is.

smartass sob | November 9, 2007, 11:36pm | #

By whose standard? I don't view the life of a dog, cat, dolphin or a chimpanzee as any less than a human life, especially if it's the life of an evil person.

Why do you make an exception for evil people? Aren't they just as human as "good" people? Or is the evil person's life somehow less valuable than that of a good person? If so, why can't the animals' lives be less valuable than a human's?

Brian Courts | November 9, 2007, 11:53pm | #

This right here suggests to me that you're at least mildly autistic.

This right here suggests (as did you insulting the entire board earlier) that you are not capable of having an intelligent discussion without resorting to (rather pathetic attempts) at insults.

I also didn't realize you were such an expert on consciousness either. I'll be awaiting your book on the subject since even the top scientists in a variety of fiends have barely been able to scratch the surface of that topic. I'm sure they'll be interested in what you have to say.

smartass sob | November 9, 2007, 11:54pm | #

Aw, to heck with it - I'm goin' to bed. 'night, all!

Brian Courts | November 10, 2007, 12:01am | #

Oh and while you've proven yourself by your comments to be someone not worth engaging, I'll venture to add one last remark. The level of self-awareness that I mentioned, assuredly is different for different species, in whatever extent it exists (which I do believe it does - my aside was simply meant to state that in most cases it is a far from scientifically settled question). If you think a rat has the same level as a dolphin or elephant or an ape then you are the one living in your own world.

Jason S. | November 10, 2007, 6:34am | #

I suppose it's much easier to point out a hypocritical statement from a PETA spokesperson than to actually think about the arguments in favor of animal rights or consider the complexities of moral behavior when dealing with non-humans.

What's this? More straw men and "if PETA says it it must be crazy" reasoning? Yawn.

ed | November 10, 2007, 6:44am | #

Yes, but...and here is the crucial question:
IS IT TORTURE IF YOU WATERBOARD A PIG?

edna | November 10, 2007, 9:09am | #

the best combo I ever had was IV Valium, IV Demerol, and laughing gas when I got my wisdom teeth removed

confession time: when the dentist gave this to me, after a half hour, i peed myself. damn, that's a nice party!

J sub D | November 10, 2007, 10:52am | #

This is a fair question. A creature in its natural habitat is subject to the ebbs and flows of nature. Hunting is part of this natural cycle.
Yeah, that 30-06, or twenty gauge is sooo, natural. Or do you just use your teeth and claws when you hunt? Assuming you use firearms or bow hunt, is every kill a quick, painless kill? Or does occasionaly that 12 point buck get up and dash further into the woods, suffering excruciating pain, until you hopefully track it down and put it out of it's misery? When I shoot dogs to experiment with trauma treatments, I can at least drug them up to mitigate their pain. You have NO right to lecture animal experimenters on morality whotsoever. YOU KILLED BAMBI'S MOTHER! DAMN YOU!

J sub D | November 10, 2007, 10:54am | #

I don't need science to tell me what is already obvious albeit unexplainable. I make decisions based on my senses and intuition;...

Translation - I can't intellectually justify my position, but in my heart I know I'm right. Sheesh.

Steve Verdon | November 10, 2007, 11:05am | #

Extreme animal rights activists says it is wrong to develop medecine through animal testing, but still uses said medecine.

Extreme libertarian says it is wrong to develop technology via government assistance, yet still uses said technology.

Are you really telling us you are this obtuse?

There are two objections. The first is that not every libertarian here at Reason, commenter or staff, are extreme. Hence the joke is at best inaccurate.

Second, I don't know too many libertarians who argue that if the government does come up with something helpful, that while doing so with taxes isn't good, should be banned/ignored/not used.

Newkirk on the other hand is very extreme. As I noted she advocates wiping out an entire breed of dog. Any dog of this breed that finds its way into the shelter system should automatically find its way to the bottom of a dead bucket. Second every dog of that breed should also be sterilized. Net result: one more generation of this great breed of dog. What is that if not extreme?

Is it silly and anal to point this stuff out? I don't think so, lots of people don't know about Peta's position about the breed of dog I noted above. And if I were to tell you the breed of dog in question most people, out of ignorance and bad information via the media, would gladly let Peta have its way. And in case your are wondering I'm talking about the American Pit Bull Terrier. A great breed of dog that has a number of heroic and well known dogs such as Pete the Pup for Little Rascals/Our Gang, Sgt. Stubby a dog that performed heroically on the battlefield in WWI, then there are Cheyene, Dakota and Tahoe all of whom are trained SAR dogs, to everyday pets such as Missy who saved a boy from being mauled by two Akitas by fighting both 100 lbs. Akitas off the boy and keeping them off until authorities could arrive (keep in mind American Pit Bull Terriers typically weigh no more than 60 lbs). So if it is silly and anal, I just don't give a sh*t.

Mr. Nice Guy | November 10, 2007, 11:32am | #

"If, as I thought you were doing, you try to draw conclusions from the smaller class (of terminally ill infants) and apply them to the much larger class of all infants, then it is."

No, I think normal infants deserve more moral consideration than animals. But I would not torture a terminally ill infant to get a cure for a normal infant, and so my point was that it is reasonable to hold that it may be wrong to torture animals with higher functioning.

"Translation - I can't intellectually justify my position, but in my heart I know I'm right. Sheesh." J sub D-I'm afraid I've heard nothing on this subject (animal rights( from you (or anyone on the con side) that was not the same. See my challenge, above thread. I think andy's point is that the self-awareness of animals is pretty self-evident. I agree with this (depending on how one might define self-aware), though I think he missed Brian Court's point that levels of self-awareness among animals vary quite a bit, in ways that will certainly matter when it comes to which animals we should give how much moral consideration to.

"There are two objections. The first is that not every libertarian here at Reason, commenter or staff, are extreme. Hence the joke is at best inaccurate." Well, of course that is the point Steve. To pick on animal rights by picking on PETA is like picking on libertarians by referencing the Montana Freedmen. Why not post on a more thoughtful animal rights thinker? And to boot, as has been pointed out upthread, KMW's analogy has big holes in it (see Dan and joe's comments).

"Second, I don't know too many libertarians who argue that if the government does come up with something helpful, that while doing so with taxes isn't good, should be banned/ignored/not used." But of course Newkirk was not saying that advances derived in part through experimentation on animals should be banned did she? She just want's to stop future advances gotten that way (just like many libertarians would like to see future advances not be gotten through taxes).

J sub D | November 10, 2007, 1:04pm | #

MNG - I agree with most of what you say. I draw the line at Homo Sapiens. How about you? It's a simple question for me to answer. You may be surprised that I'm happy with Michael Vicks incarceration, but I am. I see a difference beteen dog fighting, bull fighting, cock fighting etc and medical experimentation on animals, even primates. The latter is morally justified because I'm an unabashed speciesist. Where do you draw the line?

Xanthippas | November 10, 2007, 2:08pm | #

We agree that IV (intravenous) drips of painkillers are a good thing. And we don’t know which drug she was on, assuming it didn’t come from PETA’s “Let's Have a Dog Party!” tackle box. But the most commonly prescribed IV painkillers, fentanyl and meperidine (Demerol), have both been extensively tested on animals.

What a joke. To opposed to animal testing, she does not need to renounce the benefits of animal testing already conducted. It's not required to be ideologically consistent, and it's stupid.

Better "gotchas" please.

Xanthippas | November 10, 2007, 2:10pm | #

The latter is morally justified because I'm an unabashed speciesist.

Not, it's not. Discriminating against black people is not "morally justified" because you're a racist. What's immoral is the species-ism itself; you're just talking about being philosophically consistent. But that's not morality.

edna | November 10, 2007, 2:16pm | #

And how do you intellectually justify that position? Or do you just know in your heart that you're right?

it's in the nature of an axiom, not a theorem.

J sub D | November 10, 2007, 2:23pm | #

There will come a day where "I'm an unabashed speciesist" will be as offensive to most people as "I'm an unabashed racist." Until then bigoted assholes like you get a pass on your disgusting biases. I hope you get eaten by rabid hounds.

This from the man who KILLED BAMBI'S MOM! Thanks for your moral guidance. That I hold beings that I share DNA (The Selfish Molecule) with is neither surprising or immoral. Would you save Secretariat or a bag lady? One or the other, you don't have time to do both. BTW, if the hounds are eating me, it probably doesn't matter what pathogens they're carrying, does it. I hope you live a long, healthy and probably undeseved life.

Brian Courts | November 10, 2007, 3:02pm | #

I don't hold science as a religion as you and most of the rest of this board apparently do. I don't need science to tell me what is already obvious albeit unexplainable. I make decisions based on my senses and intuition; you make yours on the fallible words of a scientist. Ironically, the words of the scientist normally turn out to be congruent with what I knew all along.

andy, andy, andy... I take it irony is lost on you. In the same post that you accuse me of viewing science as a religion (I do not) you admit that your views don't need support from any kind of investigation of nature (i.e. science, for the intellectually challenged) - that they just come to you as revealed wisdom that is "obvious albeit unexplainable." (!!!) Do you not get how hilariously ironic that is? You have essentially defined your view in a way indistinguishable from religion. That is rich! ROTFLMAO, as the kiddies say.

That post alone stands as testament to why, even though I probably have more sympathy for your view than most on here (though not to your extreme, nor including you logical inconsistency vis-à-vis experimenting / hunting), I simply can't take anything you say seriously (as if the previous two reasons I cited weren't enough!).

But andy, in all sincerity, I do care about your suffering (even though that "I just know" post marks you as one arrogant prick!) so please, please, do not subject the religious-like certainty of your "rightness" (evidence? I don't need no stinkin' evidence!) to the heathens on this "cesspool of a site" any longer! For the love of all that is just and right, save yourself while you still can and take your leave of us post-haste!

Vanessa | November 10, 2007, 9:55pm | #

Steve Verdon,

I have read about PETA's stance on pit bulls before. It would probably interest you to know that actually, in the ideal PETA world there would be no animals selectively bred by humans at all. There are some quotes from Newkirk about this here:

http://www.animalrights.net/quotes.html

buzz harshed | November 11, 2007, 12:10am | #

"Until then bigoted assholes like you get a pass on your disgusting biases. I hope you get eaten by rabid hounds."

Such lofty and humane (or is that word speciest?) thoughts from a self-declared moralist.

Steve Verdon | November 11, 2007, 1:36am | #

Well, of course that is the point Steve. To pick on animal rights by picking on PETA is like picking on libertarians by referencing the Montana Freedmen. Why not post on a more thoughtful animal rights thinker?

I don't see KMW picking on animal rights activists in general, but Newkirk and Peta in particular.

But of course Newkirk was not saying that advances derived in part through experimentation on animals should be banned did she?

Well I guess that depends on how you interprest the quote above about being against a cure for AIDS that was based on animal testing.

She just want's to stop future advances gotten that way (just like many libertarians would like to see future advances not be gotten through taxes).

Again, as you note, not all libertarians feel that way, but it seems clear that Newkirk does. So picking on Newkirk specifically for that reason seems quite legitimate. Hence Dan T. and Joe are wrong.

Vanessa,

Yes and I find all of those quotes appalling and I find Peta's world view very depressing.

The Wine Commonsewer | November 11, 2007, 2:49am | #

I think the real question goes something like this: Is it moral for a coyote to eat the upper body, front legs, and head of your kid's Siamese cat before the dogs can run the son of a bitch off. Lord knows they gave it a good shot. In Peta's world the kids wouldn't have the cat or the dogs in the first place, which would leave the coyote shit out of luck in the first instance. Got dam PETA.

JBB | November 11, 2007, 7:48am | #

There is nothing hypocritical about Newkirk's actions. As Mangu-Ward points out herself this testing was done 70 YEARS AGO. There is nothing PETA can do to prevent suffering and cruelty which has already taken place but they work to prevent future atrocities.

Also, Mangu-Ward fails to point out ALL new pharmaceutical products must be tested on animals BY LAW. So it's not that Demerol has been tested on animals, ALL drugs have been tested on animals before going to market. If Newkirk took Tylenol or another OTC drug the same could be said about it.

R C Dean | November 11, 2007, 8:02am | #

I need my life to fight for the rights of animals.

See, also, destroying the village to save it.

Yeah, that 30-06, or twenty gauge is sooo, natural.

Well, its not super natural, so yeah, I guess it is natural.

Vanessa | November 11, 2007, 11:04pm | #

Steve Verdon:

"Yes and I find all of those quotes appalling and I find Peta's world view very depressing."

I can only imagine that Ingrid Newkirk has a personality disorder. She has built her life around her alleged concern for animal rights, but she is responsible for euthanizing them by the pound. As a young woman working in an animal shelter, she used to come in during off-hours and do it of her own volition. She runs an organization that will apparently tell any lie to anybody for the sake of donations - even going so far as to tell lies on behalf of others, such as publicizing celebrities as supporters of her organization when they are not (they did this with the Beastie Boys). She has been described by fans as having a beatific personality that just fills them with love and hope, yet she very creepily wants her skin used to make handbags after her death. I could go on, and I realize I'm not providing links, but this stuff is all easy to access on-line, especially at the CCF. Anyhow, yes, depressing, distasteful, morbid, arrogant, hateful - I think all these words characterize her and her organization very well.

The Wine Commonsewer: Well done!

JBB | November 12, 2007, 12:26am | #

Vanessa, I am not substantiating your assertion Newkirk has euthanized pets in the past, she might have, but regardless if you have ever spent any time volunteering in an animal shelter, and I have, sometimes euthanasia is the kindest fate an animal can face. 10-11 million dogs and cats are euthanized yearly due to a lack of homes, shortage of shelter space, and often limited resources. I ask you, what is a shelter to do?

T | November 12, 2007, 10:23am | #

JBB,

I'm late to the party, but look up the stats on the animal shelters PETA was running in Virginia. When you euthanize 80% of your animals, something is wrong. Newkirk also admitted PETA could run no-kill shelters, but it would cost more. The next ad buy takes priority over the actual animals everybody else should be treating ethically.

PETA and all their supporters can go DIAF.

Vanessa | November 12, 2007, 11:49am | #

JBB:

I realize I wasn't making the most defensible point when I said that. I was trying to convey that I think she is, to put it colloquially, not right in the head. Here is what she said about that time in her life. It's from the Wikipedia entry on her:

"I would say, 'They are stepping on the animals, crushing them like grapes, and they don't care.' In the end, I would go to work early, before anyone got there, and I would just kill the animals myself. Because I couldn't stand to let them go through that. I must have killed a thousand of them, sometimes dozens every day. Some of those people would take pleasure in making them suffer. Driving home every night, I would cry just thinking about it. And I just felt, to my bones, this cannot be right."

There's no context there to support an argument for or against what she did. I don't doubt that the animals were in an abysmal situation. I just think that for her to take the initiative of coming in early to euthanize dozens at a time by herself is creepy and morbid and doesn't speak very well of her mental state at that time, just as her grandstanding and making comments about "Newkirk Nuggets" (for grilling) and making wallets or whatever out of her skin once she is dead speaks poorly of her mental state now.

I am an animal lover. Right now, I live in a house with 5 cats, all of them strays that my roommate and I took in. We once took responsibility for having a whole litter of kittens and their mother spayed & neutered, and found homes for them all. We did TNR with another cat, a semi-feral who took up in our backyard for a while. So, I am concerned about pet overpopulation. But I think it is perfectly natural, actually, that humans breed other animals.

Newkirk has said that she wishes she didn't even exist, so she wouldn't be able to cause any harm. Whatever are the factors that motivate that woman, be they guilt, intolerable sensitivity to suffering (of which I have my doubts), extreme narcissism, the spirit of cosmic oneness, or some combination, I'm just saying that she is f*cked up and not a person whose philosophy on the place of animals in human society should be an influence on animal welfare/control policy.

T's point about the kill rate in PETA shelters illustrates what a fraud she is. I seriously doubt the bulk of people who donate their money to PETA do so for the cause of orchestrating publicity stunts. They do it to help the puppies and kitties find "forever homes," and most would be appalled to find out the truth about the organization.

JBB | November 12, 2007, 1:40pm | #

Vanessa,

Your quote above illustrates my point: again, sometimes euthanasia is the kindest fate an animal can face. Some shelters are run very poorly. It sounds like this one was.

To say someone is not right in the head because they euthanize animals is pure conjecture. Veterinarians and shelter employees do this on a very regular basis, this does not make them mentally ill, unstable, etc.

Also, you are NOT an animal lover if you intentially bred your cat. People who breed animals contribute to the pet overpopulation problem, not help it. The fact you use the word "responsibility" is atrocious. It is far from responsible to bring MORE cats or dogs into the world.

Vanessa | November 12, 2007, 3:26pm | #

Read it again. I didn't say we bred her. She was a stray that gave birth in our back yard. We took them in, had her and all the kittens spayed/neutered and found homes for them. We kept the mother ourselves.

There are a variety of things that make me question Newkirk's unique psychology and the wisdom of accepting her as a guide to animal welfare policy. I touched on some of them. I acknowledged bias, in my opinion, by saying that "it wasn't the most defensible opinion." But I can say it more clearly if you prefer. I think Ingrid Newkirk is freaky, and in a bad way. She gives me bad vibes. She is a misanthrope and I don't even particularly get the impression she likes animals. I'm not a qualified mental health professional anyways so I'm not getting out the DSM here to justify saying she has a personality disorder. And it's ok with me if you're not convinced. I don't imagine there is anything that would convince you, so why bother trying? I'm just expressing some ill will towards Newkirk.

neil | November 12, 2007, 3:30pm | #

Ingrid Newkirk, you may recall, once told a reporter that "even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it."

Ah, but she never said they wouldn't use it, now did they?

JBB | November 12, 2007, 3:35pm | #

Vanessa, I am glad to read you didn't breed her and did the right thing. Sincere kudos to you.

As for Newkirk, any opinions are just that, opinions. Neither one of us know her personally.

Steve Verdon | November 13, 2007, 12:10pm | #

Ingrid Newkirk, you may recall, once told a reporter that "even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it."

Ah, but she never said they wouldn't use it, now did they?

Guess that is how you interpret "we'd be against it," doesn't it? Are they against the animal testing, the cure itself, or both? Given some of Newkirk's past statements, I'm inclined to go with both.

"I would say, 'They are stepping on the animals, crushing them like grapes, and they don't care.' In the end, I would go to work early, before anyone got there, and I would just kill the animals myself. Because I couldn't stand to let them go through that. I must have killed a thousand of them, sometimes dozens every day. Some of those people would take pleasure in making them suffer. Driving home every night, I would cry just thinking about it. And I just felt, to my bones, this cannot be right."

Funny, I don't disagree with the notion that we have to euthanize so many animals is not right. Where I draw the line is that the solution is to wipe all dogs and cats. Then to make grotesque comparisons to the Holocaust is simply mind boggling. Newkirk is, in a word, nuts.

JBB | November 13, 2007, 7:34pm | #

Steve, ever witness what is done to animals under the guise of "research," "agriculture," and "entertainment?" It's obvious you haven't. If you have you'd understand the holocaust comparision.