PETA party

[mumblethrax]

I guess. Although the simplest way to reject animal cruelty is, sort of like Baldwin put it, to simply buy less meat and other animal products. It doesn't require supporting such an organization -- unless one wants to get more deeply involved. I would not recommend supporting PETA though, there are better animal welfare organizations to support.

I agree that that's the simplest way to reject cruelty, an important gesture to make--and it's notable how few animal welfarists make it (which points to the major distinction between animal rights and animal welfare). But PETA isn't an animal welfare organization. It's an animal rights organization.

There are a few things, but for starters: that just about every other animal welfare group I can think of that I actually see in my or any local community working with animals, rescuing them and so forth, struggles to find funds for facilities and publicity and often either tank or ride the hairy edge.

And PETA still isn't an animal welfare organization.

PETA is an organization with nationwide scope--consequently, that have different priorities. It's silly to compare them to your local shelter. The ASPCA, last time I checked, runs exactly one shelter, despite being orders of magnitude larger than your typical humane society, and even that's for historical reasons. They, too, mostly work on matters of national import.

But PETA has enough money to throw celebrity galas, and celebrities choose to publicize and donate to them (likely for that reason). It's just the big superficial pretense of it all. I find it very funny.

It's fundraising/PR. I have no idea what's supposed to be funny about it.

But, fine, whatever. PETA are superficial terrorists.

 

[Checkmite]

And PETA still isn't an animal welfare organization.

PETA is an organization with nationwide scope--consequently, that have different priorities.

Yeah, like trying to get the city of Fishkill, New York to change its name and writing to the PLO to complain that their mass-murder suicide bombs are killing innocent nearby donkeys. Such activities are capital-intensive, I understand.

 

[Meed]

I agree that that's the simplest way to reject cruelty, an important gesture to make--and it's notable how few animal welfarists make it (which points to the major distinction between animal rights and animal welfare). But PETA isn't an animal welfare organization. It's an animal rights organization.

Pretty much every v*gan I've known has been an animal welfareist. Do you have any evidence that "it's notable how few animal welfarists [avoid/reduce the consumption of animal products]"?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

PETA's understanding of rights is not only more intelligent, informed and philosophically sophisticated than the general public's, but towers above what one typically encounters on skeptic forums.

Perhaps.

But those of us who enjoy eating meat are more numerous and we are better armed than you are.

 

[Cain]

There are a few things, but for starters: that just about every other animal welfare group I can think of that I actually see in my or any local community working with animals, rescuing them and so forth, struggles to find funds for facilities and publicity and often either tank or ride the hairy edge. But PETA has enough money to throw celebrity galas, and celebrities choose to publicize and donate to them (likely for that reason). It's just the big superficial pretense of it all. I find it very funny.

And out of all their events, CNN covers this one, and you chose to create a thread about it. We cannot say PETA is on the one hand run by crazy ideologues, and on the other this just an excuse to throw parties. They're unapologetic, self-described "press sluts" because, sadly, people are more likely to listen to the guy from Thirty Rock than a professor of philosophy at New School.

Pretty much every v*gan I've known has been an animal welfareist. Do you have any evidence that "it's notable how few animal welfarists [avoid/reduce the consumption of animal products]"?

That's odd because most of the meat-eaters I encounter claim to support animal welfare. It's like what Nixon said, "We're all welfarists now." In a saner world, "animal welfare" would be regarded as a Trojan Horse for animal rights. Such as it is, people use it as moral alibi.

Perhaps. But those of us who enjoy eating meat are more numerous and we are better armed than you are.

You speak in facts.

 

[mumblethrax]

Pretty much every v*gan I've known has been an animal welfareist. Do you have any evidence that "it's notable how few animal welfarists [avoid/reduce the consumption of animal products]"?

It's hard to get a handle on how many people reduce their meat consumption. Relative to what? I'm not aware of any good data on that in any case. But polls typically put the total number of veg*ns at about 2-5% of the US population (with vegans representing about a third of that number). In contrast, 82% think "there should be effective laws that protect farm animals against cruelty and abuse," according to Zogby. I'd characterize that as a welfarist position. So it seems that the vast majority of people who support animal welfare (as it relates to farm animals, anyway) are not inclined towards vegetarianism of any stripe.

And that's not surprising, because animal welfarism does not demand that we not raise animals for their meat, its advocates only electing to be vegetarian (for ethical reasons) where they feel they do not have access to meat or milk or eggs raised with sufficient attention to the well-being of animals. Naturally, people are inclined to feel that animals are treated well, even where they've never checked.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of my vegan and vegetarian friends (I have, literally, several) support both animal welfare measures and animal rights--they aren't actually in conflict most of the time.

 

[Checkmite]

And out of all their events, CNN covers this one, and you chose to create a thread about it.

Yeah, so? I'm not a member of the organization, and (tellingly enough) the only time I ever hear anything about PETA is when CNN covers it. It's a pretty good measure of what kind of "reach" this organization's alleged "work" has. This time it was merely some big party - pretty moderate fare - but usually when they make CNN it's because they've thoughtlessly marginalized slavery or the Holocaust or committed some other offense against human dignity, because they think that by being so insulting people will say "oh, they're right, Holocaust victims are exactly like chickens, I never realized!" when in reality all people are saying is "god, PETA are a bunch of trolls, can't we ban them from the universe?".

We cannot say PETA is on the one hand run by crazy ideologues, and on the other this just an excuse to throw parties. They're unapologetic, self-described "press sluts" because, sadly, people are more likely to listen to the guy from Thirty Rock than a professor of philosophy at New School.

Firstly, I did not at any point accuse them of being crazy idealogues. Secondly, PETA is not run by the celebrities who endorse and donate so much to it. It's more like a symbiotic relationship. PETA uses the celebs to create (they think) credibility; celebs use PETA to gain "caring richie" brownie points.

 

[Meed]

Someone will have to define the difference between an "animal rightist" and an "animal welfarist". The explanations I've read of the animal rights position are more extreme than the feelings of any veg*n I've known (15 or so lifetime). But yeah, of course most people who claim to "care about the welfare of animals" on some level or another are not vegetarians. The point I meant to make was that most people who make the choice to stop consuming meat and/or other animal products do not have an extreme "animal rights" position. That is my perception anyway. Also, if you go to an online community like veggieboards, I've noticed that PETA is unpopular with more members than not (although I think more due to their antics than their stances).

 

[Meed]

That's odd because most of the meat-eaters I encounter claim to support animal welfare. It's like what Nixon said, "We're all welfarists now." In a saner world, "animal welfare" would be regarded as a Trojan Horse for animal rights. Such as it is, people use it as moral alibi.

There's a difference between saying it and doing something about it.

 

[Meed]

celebs use PETA to gain "caring richie" brownie points.

Highly doubtful. I can think of few advocacy organizations less popular think than PETA. Maybe NAMBLA. And it's not just PETA that's unpopular, but vegetarians in general aren't much liked. A comedian can typically get a crowd to cheer just by making a disparaging remark about us.

 

[Checkmite]

Highly doubtful. I can think of few advocacy organizations less popular think than PETA. Maybe NAMBLA.

Not amongst the public; I mean amongst other celebs.

And it's not just PETA that's unpopular, but vegetarians in general aren't much liked. A comedian can typically get a crowd to cheer just by making a disparaging remark about us.

I like vegetarians.

Vegans are generally okay too, as long as they're not the ones who'll call me a horrible, awful person for being a beekeeper.

By the way, why do some people refer to vegans as veg*ns? I've noticed it in other places too and am curious about the reasoning.

 

[Meed]

Not amongst the public; I mean amongst other celebs.

Maybe. Or maybe they actually do care. Or some combination of both.

I like vegetarians.

Vegans are generally okay too, as long as they're not the ones who'll call me a horrible, awful person for being a beekeeper.

By the way, why do some people refer to vegans as veg*ns? I've noticed it in other places too and am curious about the reasoning.

Some vegans are dicks, obviously. But they're not dicks simply for being vegans, which is the attitude some people seem to take.

Veg*ns refers to both vegans and vegetarians.

 

[Slimething]

Weak.

How so? The two founders speaking directly to the question. One of them is current president. It's little wonder you idolize the first senile POTUS so. You will only accept the varnished, scripted vernacular and ignore whatever doesn't jibe with what you want to believe.

Why not go directly to the source instead of searching for salacious, out-of-context twenty year-old utterances:

Because you don't find candid unscripted views in websites constructed to maximize donations. Is that a good enough reason? No? Are you after truth or affirmation?

PETA's understanding of rights is not only more intelligent, informed and philosophically sophisticated than the general public's, but towers above what one typically encounters on skeptic forums.

To you, maybe. To most of us, they're as whacked as you appear to be. But you're the one who approves of terrorism, judging by your posts in another thread, right? You need to think about this a lot more.

 

[Slimething]

How is this even a response to what I wrote? Of course I see the point in presenting evidence and reason in general; I don't see any point in doing so where people aren't arguing in good faith. I'd like some assurance that this thread will be different than previous threads on the topic here. Your response to Cain's challenge is a pretty good indication that I hope in vain.

Let me restate that for you: "I have no compelling evidence that PETA deserves any more respect that it is actually getting in this thread. I'm upset about the ridicule of the organization, that's all." How did I do? How is what I wrote distinguishable from what you've written given that you've provided no evidence to support your words?

Because if it's a one man operation there cannot be any other interests represented.

Really? Talk to Randi. He'll tell you about one-man operations that support many views.

If the CCFA were comprised of Berman and well-known consumer rights advocate John Q. Public, they might occasionally produce something not intended to deceive. It isn't. It doesn't.

More unsupported opinion. Does this ever stop?

I think that's a not very useful way of determining the intent in posting the thread. But if you would like to do that, then this thread is about nothing more than knee-jerk reactions to somebody invoking PETA's name, which I've said several times I'm happy to concede.

Could you propose a better way to establish whether or not the main thrust of this thread is lampooning PETA's association with celebrities? You've offered nothing but unsupported conclusions then you tell me you don't feel you need to post evidence because I'm biased or the whole of JREF is biased or the whole world is biased...

The JREF has a celebrity-laden party every year.

A conference is a party? Have you ever been to a meeting at a party?

I've also pointed out where some of these claims are totally irrelevant, and where they are spread as part of smear campaign by known ********ter Rick Berman. What more do you want?

Evidence carries the day in this forum. You've offered nothing but conclusions. Pony up the data.

Oh, it's possible to do both. It's just absurd to do both.

Um, no. Most organizations tout their celebrity members. Even the terrorist ones. How do you know the name bin Laden? He's not a one-man show. He belongs to a terrorist group.

If you genuinely believe that PETA supports or is a terrorist organization, why are we talking about the fact that honor their celebrity supporters?

Because we like to make fun of them.

I think it's because people know that the 'terrorist' charge won't stick--I don't even think they genuinely believe it themselves--and so they feel the need to pile on secondary charges. It's a hedging strategy, and further indication that the conversation is not carried out in good faith.

How ridiculous. If the terrorist charge didn't stick, you wouldn't be whining about this thread. There is ample evidence to support the statement. Again, you've only bleated against people making it but have offered no evidence against it. Why is that?

I think I've said it twice. I don't consider it controversial.

Wow. It's so noncontroversial that you're denying facts we all know. It's so uncontroversial that you can't offer any evidence that you are right. It's so uncontroversial that I'm now wasting my time corresponding with someone who can't support their arguments.

I know it's too much to ask of the people on these forums that they do any research on their own, but here's a link:

http://www.peta.org/issues/Companion-Animals/euthanasia-the-compassionate-option.aspx

What if we believe in propaganda even less than you do?

The one on animal rights.

OK. I just read the first paragraph. Amount of sway from original position = 0. Thanks.

No, I'm not going to chew your food for you. I told you what to read. I told you where to find it. Go read at least the first sentence of that entry. Or don't, and keep making a fool out of yourself.

Not asking you to do anything other than to back up your assertions. You've given me nothing in that direction. I don't mind making a fool of myself. I've backed up my claims so, if that makes me a food, so be it. Why not join me?

It would dispel the strawman about anthopomorphization, but mostly I just think you might stop exposing your own ignorance about what animal rights supporters actually support. Try to keep in mind the context of my suggestion that you read that entry: it was immediately after you made it clear that you have no idea what you're talking about when you talk about animal rights.

I know that the movement is about. I'm afraid you don't. You insinuate above that all animal rights supporters are homogenous. Even the wiki article you sent me to contradicts that.

What? I just told you that I don't think I'm smarter than you. Are you trying to change my mind?

I'd be content with you changing anyone's mind.

This is a skeptic's site. If you don't have evidence, move along.

 

[Cain]

Yeah, so? I'm not a member of the organization, and (tellingly enough) the only time I ever hear anything about PETA is when CNN covers it. It's a pretty good measure of what kind of "reach" this organization's alleged "work" has.

It might just tell us more about you. PETA's a rather effective, nationally known organization. If what you said were true, then the corporations that profit from animal exploitation would not fear them.

This time it was merely some big party - pretty moderate fare - but usually when they make CNN it's because they've thoughtlessly marginalized slavery or the Holocaust or committed some other offense against human dignity, because they think that by being so insulting people will say "oh, they're right, Holocaust victims are exactly like chickens, I never realized!" when in reality all people are saying is "god, PETA are a bunch of trolls, can't we ban them from the universe?".

And there are black church-goers who are offended when homosexuals make comparisons to the civil rights movement. PETA's more provocative statements are intended as rings to the bell-tower -- watch the bats escape unkempt minds. I do love how these comparisons are an "offense to human dignity." What about the suffering imposed on animals for trivial pleasure and amusement? Those are not offenses to human dignity? PETA uncovers atrocities committed at a KFC supplier (I think it was a "supplier of the year"), and do the sort of apologists who post to this thread get worked up against a company that serves up dismembered corpses in a bucket? No. PETA makes a comparison to THE Holocaust -- tens of billions of animals killed each year-- and it's an unforgivable thought crime.

During the whole Terri Schaivo thing I kept wondering why we even argued over giving her a feeding tube. We should have been arguing over infecting her with AIDS. Except we would not refer to her as "her" but as a research subject. That would have riled people up, generating no shortage of comparisons to Nazis and other stupidly emotional comments about "human dignity."

Firstly, I did not at any point accuse them of being crazy idealogues.

This is true. Your account for their motives is, well, quite bit more airy.

Secondly, PETA is not run by the celebrities who endorse and donate so much to it. It's more like a symbiotic relationship. PETA uses the celebs to create (they think) credibility; celebs use PETA to gain "caring richie" brownie points.

Strange. Why do publicity-conscious "celebs" choose to use an organization that so obviously invites ridicule?
----------------------------

There's a difference between saying it and doing something about it.

Is it any surprise rights advocates are more concerned about animal welfare? "Moral schizophrenia" is an apt description of our society; pet these animals, kill those.
----------------------------

How so? The two founders speaking directly to the question.

Because they do not support what you claimed. The first said animals have the rights of a retarded child, which strongly implies retarded children do not have the rights of "regular" humans. The Newkirk quote, which has taken many forms, seeks to undermine the specialness of humans, and inspires outrage in ways not unfamiliar to Dawkins and other evolutionists. You're missing the context -- what exactly prompted them to say these things? Instead of flagging individual comments, why not go to the guiding philosophy as outlined on the organization's website? Nooooooo, you're reduced to endlessly recycled pull quotes from twenty years ago.

It's little wonder you idolize the first senile POTUS so. You will only accept the varnished, scripted vernacular and ignore whatever doesn't jibe with what you want to believe.

The sort of ridicule this comment demands isn't in me right now.

 

[Meed]

Is it any surprise rights advocates are more concerned about animal welfare? "Moral schizophrenia" is an apt description of our society; pet these animals, kill those.

Huh?

 

[mumblethrax]

Let me restate that for you: "I have no compelling evidence that PETA deserves any more respect that it is actually getting in this thread. I'm upset about the ridicule of the organization, that's all." How did I do? How is what I wrote distinguishable from what you've written given that you've provided no evidence to support your words?

When someone says "Let me restate that for you," in response to something you've written, you can be sure that a gross mischaracterization will follow. This is no exception.

Really? Talk to Randi. He'll tell you about one-man operations that support many views.

What are the many views that Berman represents? Please, name some. I've given you what I believe is the only views he represents: those of his clients.

All you have to do is to find the CCF advocating one view that is not in the interest of his clients.

Could you propose a better way to establish whether or not the main thrust of this thread is lampooning PETA's association with celebrities?

Well, the thread is called "PETA Party." The first post lampoons PETA's association with celebrities.

Works for me.

A conference is a party? Have you ever been to a meeting at a party?

The JREF calls it a celebration. I'm comfortable with calling it whatever you want, but it's pretty obvious that people like Penn Gillette, Matt Stone, Trey Parker, and Adam Savage get invited because of their celebrity first, their support of the cause second. Penn, in particular, is an embarrassing idiot. I don't hold it against the JREF.

How do you know the name bin Laden?

I'm pretty sure he was on Dancing with the Stars.

How ridiculous. If the terrorist charge didn't stick, you wouldn't be whining about this thread. There is ample evidence to support the statement.

Please provide evidence that PETA is a terrorist organization.

Again, you've only bleated against people making it but have offered no evidence against it. Why is that?

Because it's your claim, not mine. I don't have to offer evidence against it, you have to offer evidence in favor of it.

Wow. It's so noncontroversial that you're denying facts we all know. It's so uncontroversial that you can't offer any evidence that you are right. It's so uncontroversial that I'm now wasting my time corresponding with someone who can't support their arguments.

I just pointed you to the clearest possible evidence that PETA publicly supports euthanasia: the web page where they publicly support euthanasia.

What if we believe in propaganda even less than you do?

Let's review: you say "It's not the act itself. It's the hypocrisy. An organization preaching that animals have the same rights as humans but killing them on the sly. Get it yet?" I point out that this is not accurate (PETA does not preach that animals have the same rights as humans, and is open about their advocacy of merciful euthanasia). Cain asks you to support your claim that PETA preaches that animals have the same rights as humans; you fall flat on your face. I point you to PETA's page on euthanasia, where they clearly state their support of same, and you say "What if we believe in propaganda even less than you do?"

You don't have to believe anything on that page, because it's only necessary that the page exist in order to see that PETA publicly supports euthanasia. I mean, what's your claim now? That they don't support euthanasia,despite purporting to, and actually doing it? That they can be pro-euthanasia on the sly despite being completely upfront about it?

You know what's useful, beyond providing evidence? Having any *********** clue how to interpret and evaluate it. Being able to keep track of your own claims is also an important life skill.

OK. I just read the first paragraph. Amount of sway from original position = 0. Thanks.

You can lead a horse to water...

Let me know when you find any evidence of your claim that PETA preaches that animals have the same rights as humans. Until then, you're inventing things.

Not asking you to do anything other than to back up your assertions. You've given me nothing in that direction. I don't mind making a fool of myself. I've backed up my claims so, if that makes me a food, so be it. Why not join me?

Because I prefer not to be a fool. You haven't backed up your claims; you don't even understand what you yourself are claiming.

I know that the movement is about.

You don't.

You insinuate above that all animal rights supporters are homogenous.

Get real.

 

[samanthakayee]

"Moral schizophrenia" is an apt description of our society; pet these animals, kill those.
----------------------------
.

I would think that has a lot to do with taste. Dog is a lean meat and would be harder to cook it tender then say a cow.

 

[Meed]

I know that's the only reason I didn't eat my dog.

 

[Cain]

I would think that has a lot to do with taste. Dog is a lean meat and would be harder to cook it tender then say a cow.

A lot of people cannot tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi! I mean... passionate partisans. Food involves emotions other than taste. Nobody finds out the mystery meat they're eating are dog-testicles and says, "Mmmmmmmmm! SOOOOO good!!"

Many vegetarians become disgusted by meat, Scott Tenorman passes on special chili, people even pre-judge certain parts of otherwise acceptable animals (such as cow brain). Without even a ceremonial nod to irony omnivores on this forum will say, "Well, I'm an animal-lover..."