Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I have a sticker on my bow case of a buck with piss streaming on the word PETA 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About 15 years ago someone got the internet domain rights to PETA. They made a People Eating Tastey Animals. They had links to game recipies; hunting guides and a variety of hunting related sites.  I think I found the original NJH on it. It must have drove the animal rights wackos crazy. Whoever did it finally lost the domain and the wackos took it over

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just reading PETA's "manifesto" on their website. So many things you could say.... sorry, I have to write these down... PETA annoys me.

1. https://www.peta.org/features/what-peta-really-stands-for/

"Ethical treatment—the Golden Rule—must be extended to all living beings: reptiles, mammals, fish, insects, birds, amphibians, and crustaceans."

Why? Who determines this rule?

Are you really saying insects are on the same level as humans and treatments we extend to humans must equally extend to insects? I cannot squash a fly that lands on my food because that would be murder?

"We must abandon the archaic and incorrect boundary of “human,” which we use to justify the ongoing massacre of billions of beings."

Who decides that this boundary is "incorrect" and "archaic"? PETA? Peter Singer? Who exactly provides the objective moral basis for these ethics? Why does this boundary stop at animals? Why not plants? Why not bacteria and viruses?

"More than a century ago, Charles Darwin showed that all beings had the same common ancestor."

No, he didn't. He proposed it, he didn't "show it". The theory of common ancestry/descent is not agreed upon even among contemporary evolutionists. It is a highly debated topic. But let's say all living organisms derived from a common ancestor. Wouldn't that include plants as well as animals - so by their reasoning, if all living beings had the same common ancestor, why are we massacring billions, and trillions, of plants merely to serve as our food? Isn't it arbitrary to say, "we can kill plants for food but not animals" when life must have had a common ancestor? At what point in evolutionary history is it OK to say "these beings are ok to kill, these beings are not ok to kill?"   Why is it OK to do this when plants and animals split off the evolutionary tree? Why not at the common ancestor?

"Animals are not ours to experiment on, eat, wear, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way. All beings desire freedom to live a natural life, according to their inherent desires and instincts. While the lives of all beings necessarily involve some amount of suffering, human beings must stop deliberately inflicting suffering on all beings for our own selfish desires."

Again, who says? What is the basis for this ethical theory?

And it isn't selfish if eating animals provides nourishment anymore than it is selfish of the lion to eat the zebra or the sheep to eat the grass. 

So, human beings must stop deliberate suffering caused by other humans, but if all animals must be treated equally (humans and all others) then shouldn't humans not only stop other humans from causing pain and suffering, but we should also stop OTHER animals from causing pain and suffering? Why shouldn't we somehow prohibit lions from killing zebras? If not, why not? Seems arbitrary that only humans should be prohibited from eating other animals, but other animals are allowed to do this. If all animals, regardless of species, deserve to be treated without deliberately being caused to suffer, why shouldn't humans attempt to stop this across all species? Why is it that we should stop only humans from causing deliberate suffering? I thought all animals should be treated equally? Just as we would try to stop a killing in the human world, why shouldn't we try to stop a killing in the animal world?

"many beings can learn languages, enjoy complex social bonds, sacrifice pleasure for the good of others, use tools, imagine, and dream. Many beings remember information, play with friends, enjoy intimacy, gossip, and mourn their deceased.  ... all beings deserve liberty and respect not because they share the characteristics we admire in ourselves but because they are living beings. We share the same evolutionary origins, we inhabit the same Earth, and we are ruled by the same laws of nature. We are all the same."

Again, why stop arbitrarily at animals? Plants also share the same evolutionary origins. Ruled by the same natural laws. So why is it OK to eat plants? If you arbitrarily want to say, "no, this is only for animals that learn languages, enjoy social bonds, use tools, dream, etc" - what about insects who do none of those things? These are merely arbitrary dividing lines PETA is putting down. I see no reason why a naturalistic worldview should put these kinds of ethical rules in place - why stop at insects? What about bacteria? Viruses? Plants?

2. https://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/why-animal-rights/

"Peter Singer states that the basic principle of equality does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires equal consideration."

But why put humans on the same equal consideration as animals, including insects? Who makes that rule?

"People often ask if animals should have rights, and quite simply, the answer is “Yes!” Animals surely deserve to live their lives free from suffering and exploitation. "

There is no argument to back this up. Asserting something doesn't make it true. Why do animals deserve to live free from suffering? Animals impart suffering on other animals all the time - lions eat zebras, snakes eat mice. As PETA likes to say, humans are absolutely no different than other animals - but if lions can eat zebras, why can't humans eat other animals?

"Jeremy Bentham, the founder of the reforming utilitarian school of moral philosophy, stated that when deciding on a being’s rights, “The question is not ‘Can they reason?’ nor ‘Can they talk?’ but ‘Can they suffer?’”"

Utilitarian morality is not something we should readily agree to!! To say something is morally good on a utilitarian worldview is scary! First, because an action might result in an overall good doesn't mean the action is right. We should never justify murdering or imprisoning an innocent person, even if it might result in good situations as a side-effect. Plus, utilitarians have no way of showing that an action will result in good - how can you know what will happen 1, 10, 100 years from now based on some action today. I do an act that results in a good today (help a pregnant woman avoid getting hit by falling tree), might ultimately cause a disaster a century from now (the woman gave birth to Adolf Hitler). Was it therefore a bad or even evil act that I saved a pregnant woman from getting killed? On a utilitarian ethic, you could argue yes!

And who says the ultimate deciding factor on a being's rights is "can they suffer?" This is arbitrary. Does it require an experience or feeling of suffering? What if a person is unconscious? They cannot "feel" or "experience" suffering - should it then be considered OK if I murder that person? If you say no, then what is your definition of suffering? A dentist makes me suffer when he drills my teeth to fix a cavity - is that bad? No - so clearly the "can they suffer" is not all there is to it. There must be something more - you can't just make the claim that treatment is bad because it causes suffering. 

"The capacity for suffering is not just another characteristic like the capacity for language or higher mathematics. All animals have the ability to suffer in the same way and to the same degree that humans do. They feel pain, pleasure, fear, frustration, loneliness, and motherly love. "

Not all animals DO feel pain, pleasure, fear, frustration, loneliness, and motherly love in the same way and degree (if at all). Do insects have any of those qualities? Who defines what qualities matter? You could arbitrarily pick qualities such a "pleasure" and "fear" but then to what degree? Insects don't feel motherly love - neither do crabs. So what qualities are necessary here? And why choose these qualities, if it isn't arbitrary?

"Supporters of animal rights believe that animals have an inherent worth—a value completely separate from their usefulness to humans."

This may very well be true - but is that inherent worth equal or identical to humans? Who says the worth of a rabbit, or a crab, or a fly is equal to the worth of a human baby?

"When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife."

They do not feel pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear the same way as humans do. An insect or a crab does not feel pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear the same as humans, if they do at all. In this sense, a rat is not a pig is not a dog, is not a boy.

"If you wouldn’t eat a dog, why eat a pig?"

If you wouldn't eat a pig, why would you eat a plant? I can just as arbitrarily put the demarcation line at plants as PETA does at animals. Plants might not think, and feel as animals do, but they feed, grow, reproduce; they live lives just as any other living organism in that way. My arbitrary line is that - if something feeds, grows, reproduces and lives according to natural laws, then they deserve the same rights as humans. That is just as valid as their arbitrary arguments. But vegans need plants to live, so they move the goal-posts and arbitrary pick organisms that branched off on the animal tree of life, leaving plants to be killed selfishly for human food.

"Dogs and pigs have the same capacity to feel pain, but it is prejudice based on species that allows us to think of one animal as a companion and the other as dinner."

Well plants have the same capacity as we do to feed, grow, and reproduce - so it is prejudice along those lines to think we should eat plants, too.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes I think some people on here are members of PETA the way they want hunters punished...

 

Burn em at the stake!

Jail jail jail...

50000 fine!

 

All I wanted was a pepsi..

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...