PETA party

[Belz...]

I tend to ignore PETA. I'm not overly fond of terrorist organizations.

Ditto.

 

[Belz...]

Why is that bad?

Why is valuing animals more than people bad ?

 

[mumblethrax]

Why is valuing animals more than people bad ?

I don't know, ask your strawman.

 

[Meed]

Why is it relevant whether PETA is "good" or "bad"?

 

[mumblethrax]

Why is it relevant whether PETA is "good" or "bad"?

I suppose it's relevant to the question of whether to support them or not.

Although it's not especially relevant to more pressing questions, like how much Alec Baldwin weighs.

 

[Checkmite]

Particularly given that the major complaint in this one seems to be that PETA has celebrity supporters, and that Alec Baldwin is fat. What's the relevance?

There's no "complaint"; I started this thread with the same motivation for which I'd start a thread about Dinosaur Adventure Land being closed/reopened/reclosed. I find PETA to be something of an object of ridicule; a parody of itself. Its publicity campaigns seem almost designed to be self-defeating, looking as if they were thought up by writers from The Onion; and there's no getting around the fact that the organization donates to, and its leader explicitly supports, groups dedicated to illegal and destructive activity in order to achieve their goals. It's a joke, quite simply, and that is how treat news articles about the organization.

 

[mumblethrax]

There's no "complaint"; I started this thread with the same motivation for which I'd start a thread about Dinosaur Adventure Land being closed/reopened/reclosed. I find PETA to be something of an object of ridicule; a parody of itself. Its publicity campaigns seem almost designed to be self-defeating, looking as if they were thought up by writers from The Onion; and there's no getting around the fact that the organization donates to, and its leader explicitly supports, groups dedicated to illegal and destructive activity in order to achieve their goals. It's a joke, quite simply, and that is how treat news articles about the organization.

I think the thread took a critical turn almost immediately, but I accept your account that these threads mostly exist as an excuse to gossip.

But I guess I don't get the joke. What exactly is ridiculous about the fact that PETA holds a celebrity gala? Why not start a thread about an actual, ridiculous thing that PETA has done if that's what you want to talk about? If you want to talk about how PETA supports terrorism, and you clearly do, why not start a thread about that?

 

[Cain]

Stupid celebrities acting like "hey, I'm a celebrity and I'm gonna tell you how to live your life because I'm famous." It's just insulting they would use their public image to promote kindness animals.

Our society's so screwed up. Alec Baldwin's constantly praised, but people like the Great Ronald Reagan are condemned for being the spokespersons for noble corporations like General Electric. Instead of telling people to eat fewer animals, Baldwin should be urging viewers to buy more Coca-Cola Classic.

 

[Ausmerican]

Also, I don't think the UK should apologize for Ingrid Newkirk if Australia doesn't have to apologize for Rupert Murdoch.

Very well. On behalf of Australia I am sorry that the U.S. is the only country that decided to take Rupert Boobs-on-page-three-forever Murdoch seriously as a newsman.

 

[Slimething]

It's frustrating how people link to dishonest agitprop in every one of these threads.

Care to offer a rebuttal to said "agitprop"? Maybe if you would put us all straight, the links would stop.

Particularly given that the major complaint in this one seems to be that PETA has celebrity supporters, and that Alec Baldwin is fat. What's the relevance?

Is that the major complaint? If so, I didn't see it. Care to back that one up?

To the extent that PETA kills animals, their reasons for doing so are credible,

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?

You would think this would make animal welfarists more comfortable with them, rather than less.

Not this one. Nor any of the other people I work with at the local humane society. Yeah, I know that we're not as smart as you so I've challenged you to educate us above. Why not avail yourself of the opportunity?

 

[mumblethrax]

Care to offer a rebuttal to said "agitprop"? Maybe if you would put us all straight, the links would stop.

What's the point? I do it every time they come up, and the same people just come back and post the same links every time. It's propaganda (it's directed at influencing the public debate) and it's dishonest (the CCFA claims to represent consumer interests, but is actually a one-man show run by industry lobbyist Rick Berman, who represents the interests of his clients.) In this particular case it's a gratuitous misframing of what PETA is trying to do (they don't have the same mission as typical shelter), and a misrepresentation of PETA's position on euthanasia.

Is that the major complaint? If so, I didn't see it. Care to back that one up?

If it's not about PETA's celebrity supporters, I can't for the life of me figure out what it is supposed to be about. I guess there's also Checkmite's pedantic (and incorrect) suggestion about when to use fewer or less, and then all the usual lizard brain stuff because somebody wrote the magical word "PETA." I don't really think this thread is about anything but gossiping about PETA, of course. I'm not sure why we needed another excuse to do that.

But this stuff is ludicrously petty. People complain about PETA's courting of celebrities at the same time that they accuse them of supporting (or being!) terrorists. It's like faulting Osama bin Laden for his fashion choices. What I take away from the conversation is that these people are full of ****.

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 don't get it, because I happen to know that's not true. PETA, and Newkirk, have always been pro-euthanasia, and have said so in public for years. There's nothing inconsistent about it, and you're badly misunderstanding the animal rights plank in general.

Not this one. Nor any of the other people I work with at the local humane society.

Yes, but you would think....

I don't think I'm smarter than you, but I do think I'm better informed. You could try familiarizing yourself with the basic argument in favor of animal rights, for example. Read the first sentence of the wikipedia entry, and you'll already be in a much more informed position.

 

[Cain]

It's the hypocrisy. An organization preaching that animals have the same rights as humans but killing them on the sly. Get it yet?

Where does PETA claim "animals have the same rights as humans"? Produce a link or quote. It's foolish to charge a group with hypocrisy if you have no idea what it believes.

 

[Slimething]

Where does PETA claim "animals have the same rights as humans"? Produce a link or quote. It's foolish to charge a group with hypocrisy if you have no idea what it believes.

Alex Pacheco, also a PETA founder, said: "We feel that animals have the same rights as a retarded human child" - New York Times, 1/14/89

Ingrid Newkirk, a founder of PETA, said: "Animal liberationists do not separate out the human animal, so there is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They are all mammals" - Vogue, 9/89

 

[Slimething]

What's the point? I do it every time they come up, and the same people just come back and post the same links every time.

The point is that merely stating it's propaganda doesn't make it so. If you don't want to back up your statement, don't. Don't whine about being ignored thereafter.

It's propaganda (it's directed at influencing the public debate) and it's dishonest (the CCFA claims to represent consumer interests, but is actually a one-man show run by industry lobbyist Rick Berman, who represents the interests of his clients.) In this particular case it's a gratuitous misframing of what PETA is trying to do (they don't have the same mission as typical shelter), and a misrepresentation of PETA's position on euthanasia.

So what if it's a one-man operation? What does that have to do with it? Either you elucidate why it's misrepresentation or you just look silly.

If it's not about PETA's celebrity supporters, I can't for the life of me figure out what it is supposed to be about.

Count the number of posts that refer to a celebrity. Divide by total number of quotes. What did you get? The thread ridicules PETA because most posters believe them to be a faddish media-whore. Don't you think a celebrity-laden party would be indicative of such a group?

I don't really think this thread is about anything but gossiping about PETA, of course. I'm not sure why we needed another excuse to do that.

First, it was celebrity-mocking. Now, it's gossiping. Whichever it is, why should you care if you're not willing to pony up the counterpoint?

People complain about PETA's courting of celebrities at the same time that they accuse them of supporting (or being!) terrorists.

It's not possible to do both? Their support of terrorist groups like ELF, ALF and SHAC are documented fact. Newkirk officially states she doesn't support the actions of these groups but won't condemn them. She "understands" why they do the things they do.

It's like faulting Osama bin Laden for his fashion choices.

I don't see that. Please elaborate.

I don't get it, because I happen to know that's not true. PETA, and Newkirk, have always been pro-euthanasia, and have said so in public for years. There's nothing inconsistent about it, and you're badly misunderstanding the animal rights plank in general.

You keep saying that. I've noted that you have not posted one link or quote to support your view of PETA, though.

I don't think I'm smarter than you, but I do think I'm better informed. You could try familiarizing yourself with the basic argument in favor of animal rights, for example. Read the first sentence of the wikipedia entry, and you'll already be in a much more informed position.

What wiki entry? Care to post something? Anything? Do you think there's something so brilliant on wiki concerning Disneythink that it would make me respect an extremist group?

You may be smarter than I am but you're just not showing it.

 

[Cain]

Alex Pacheco, also a PETA founder, said: "We feel that animals have the same rights as a retarded human child" - New York Times, 1/14/89

Ingrid Newkirk, a founder of PETA, said: "Animal liberationists do not separate out the human animal, so there is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They are all mammals" - Vogue, 9/89

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

http://www.peta.org/about/faq/What-rights-should-animals-have.aspx

The answer is that not all animals have the same rights. Even within the species homo sapien it makes sense to distinguish adults from children, and children from embryos. Putting aside cognitive functioning, we can even say females and males do not have the same rights (e.g., maybe females should have the authority to abort a pregnancy).

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.

 

[Meed]

I suppose it's relevant to the question of whether to support them or not.

Although it's not especially relevant to more pressing questions, like how much Alec Baldwin weighs.

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.

 

[Psi Baba]

Very well. On behalf of Australia I am sorry that the U.S. is the only country that decided to take Rupert Boobs-on-page-three-forever Murdoch seriously as a newsman.

Touché. Well-played.

 

[Checkmite]

I think the thread took a critical turn almost immediately, but I accept your account that these threads mostly exist as an excuse to gossip.

But I guess I don't get the joke. What exactly is ridiculous about the fact that PETA holds a celebrity gala?

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.

Why not start a thread about an actual, ridiculous thing that PETA has done if that's what you want to talk about? If you want to talk about how PETA supports terrorism, and you clearly do, why not start a thread about that?

Threads and discussions are had about those issues on this forum when they are in the news. I've participated in them too.

 

[23_Tauri]

Nah. I remember a 60 Minutes story ages ago about frog or toad crossing signs across the pond. Every driver slowed down and/or stopped to let the critters continue on their way.

That was in France. They didn't want to spoil the eaters.

We've excelled ourselves now though, and built three £190,000 bridges for some dormice

Probably an EU Habitat Directive requirement, dormice being a European Protected Species.

 

[mumblethrax]

The point is that merely stating it's propaganda doesn't make it so. If you don't want to back up your statement, don't. Don't whine about being ignored thereafter.

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.

So what if it's a one-man operation? What does that have to do with it? Either you elucidate why it's misrepresentation or you just look silly.

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

Count the number of posts that refer to a celebrity. Divide by total number of quotes. What did you get?

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.

I just find the choice of topic weird. It's not like PETA doesn't provide plenty of opportunities for actual controversy.

The thread ridicules PETA because most posters believe them to be a faddish media-whore. Don't you think a celebrity-laden party would be indicative of such a group?

Not especially. The JREF has a celebrity-laden party every year.

First, it was celebrity-mocking. Now, it's gossiping. Whichever it is, why should you care if you're not willing to pony up the counterpoint?

Celebrity-mocking isn't mutually exclusive with gossiping. Anyway, this thread isn't about anything, so how can I 'pony up a counterpoint'? I have responded to false claims where I see them. 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?

It's not possible to do both? Their support of terrorist groups like ELF, ALF and SHAC are documented fact. Newkirk officially states she doesn't support the actions of these groups but won't condemn them. She "understands" why they do the things they do.

Oh, it's possible to do both. It's just absurd to do both. It's also possible to fault bin Laden for his fashion choices; why would anyone bother? If you genuinely believe that PETA supports or is a terrorist organization, why are we talking about the fact that honor their celebrity supporters? 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.

You keep saying that. I've noted that you have not posted one link or quote to support your view of PETA, though.

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

I can also find public statements prior to the improper disposal case if you like. There's been controversy within the animal rights movement for years over PETA's stance on euthanasia. It's not a secret.

What wiki entry?

The one on animal rights.

Care to post something? Anything?

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.

Do you think there's something so brilliant on wiki concerning Disneythink that it would make me respect an extremist group?

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.

You may be smarter than I am but you're just not showing it.

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