I dislike PETA with a passion, however I think there is a lot of bad information here. Honestly it's hard to deal with a group when your being equally ridiculous with them. When a group gets to a certain point (and PETA despite everything is a fairly powerful group with a decent sized membership) mockery alone is not going to make any headway.
The position of PETA is that humans have transcended the need to prey on animals. The basic attitude is that we are at a point where we can survive as vegans, eating meat or even hunting animals for their hides is no longer a nessecity, but something we do for conveinence and pleasure which is what makes it wrong. Their arguement is that you eat meat because it tastes good, and you want to wear clothing made from animal hides because you find that it looks good and is comfortable, you don't HAVE to do either of these things as alternatives exist.
When it comes to medical testing PETA's basic arguement is that we have enough medical technology right now that is tested to keep people living longer than any point in history. Indeed one of the few points I agree with them on (in isolation) is that human overpopulation is an issue, and that longer lifespans at the moment is counter productive to our survival as a species until we obtain more living space via space travel, or greatly reduce the population through some method (like warfare). Their point in stopping animal testing is not that we should test on humans, but that we should halt the development of medical technology all together since we don't need it. There is no reason to develop anything further. While I agree with them on overpopulation in a general sense, I do not agree with their stance on developing medical technology.
When it comes to releasing animals into the wild, PETA's argument is that all of these creatures, including things like cattle, survived for thousands of years without human interferance. Domestication of animals in their mind is what renders them incapable of survival, they see a sort of careful protection and re-intergration of domesticated wildlife into the wilderness as the way to go. Something which is insane and impractical, but the central logic requires a few more logical steps down the path to become ridiculous than the simple statement of them wanting to re-intergrate animals.
Speaking for myself, I am one of those people that disagrees with PETA on a fundemental level. I for one do not see violence and aggression as something to be overcome, but rather assimilated into society. That's part of what makes people human, and a lot of good has come from those impulses. Without those instincts we would not have dominated the planet and it's enviroment to the point where we would be having arguements like this. We'd probably have been exterminated by predators long ago (with little room for a middle ground).
To some extent I think one of the big problems with society today is that we attempt to reign in violent impulses a lot more than we should, and it leads to a lot of the problems we currently see. There are problems with a society being run on a principle of "might makes right" but at the same time just as many problems exist by attempting to remove violence and competition from the social order entirely and run everything under a "tyranny of the pen" as we see now. Truthfully I feel the original intent of the US was to try and create a middle ground in how it would be run. Things like our "right to keep and bear arms" existing both to ensure the population not be helpless against it's goverment, but I also feel to try and head off the issue of entirely bureaucratic and administrative domination. In a system totally run by paperwork and the scholorly interpetation of laws, you see just as much Tyranny as you would in a system where the biggest, meanest guy controlled everything, it's just that today it's a matter of who can find the most loopholes in the legal system and play the system the best. It's another form of the same exact thing. I believe the idea was (and should get back to) a combination of methods where both options balance each other, and someone can neither totally dominate through martial power, or administrative manipulation. Oddly when you look at blue law and the situations in which someone could be called out or challenged to a duel in most states (you couldn't just do it and castrate the whole system) I think there was a solid foundation for running a balanced society, albiet I think the rules needed to grow with society as opposed to being removed.
To some extent the whole situation reminding me of the old movie "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance". The basic premise is that there is an outlaw called Liberty (think on that name) working for a cattle baron to oppress a town and force it to do what he wants. A weedy lawyer (Jimmy Stuart if I remember) shows up and starts telling all the people they don't have to abide this. Needless to say Liberty objects, but John Wayne (the good version of Liberty Valance) the local tough-guy homesteader keeps driving him off. Your supposed to empathize with the Lawyer (and probably do). John Wayne however believes everyone needs to stand on their own two feet, and realizes that given the inevitability of a confrontation even if he teaches the lawyer how to shoot he'll never be able to take down Liberty. Things eventually come to a head where the Lawyer is forced to go out to fight Liberty in an affair of honor, he can't win, but as they are drawing their guns John Wayne (hiding in an alley) shoots Liberty in the back at the same time the Lawyer is drawing so everyone thinks he did it. Sacrificing his own integrity and code of living so people could live entirely under the rule of law. However an important subtext of the movie is that while this was good in the short term we all know how it all kind of turns out (the world we live in) the way John Wayne looks when drinking after shooting the guy says a lot, as does the fact that the movie both starts and ends with the Lawyer attending John Wayne's funeral and remembering that he was the true hero of the piece. The real man who shot Liberty Valance was hardly a lawbringer. Also while Liberty was a bad guy in the movie (you sort of see two sides of the coin between him and John Wayne) understand that part of the message is Liberty was killed for Law. Incidently the game "Red Dead Redemption" explores a lot of these same things, albiet in a far more direct fashion.
The point I'm getting at with this long rant is that agreeing with PETA pretty much relies on you agreeing with the central principles of what humanity should be striving for. Not everyone does, and even as far back as black and white movies, questions have been being raised about whether violent and predatory instincts are something to be overcome, or part of our nature that we should instead find a way to live with. I think the latter is the proper course as humans are both predators and social animals at the same time, add self awareness to this and there isn't anything quite like us out there that we know of to draw a parallel with.
I for one see no reason why we should not eat meat, and wear animal hide, it's what we were designed to do. Sure, I don't personally hunt and skin animals, instead I learned to do other things before I became disabled. Part of the point of developing a civilization was getting to the point where not everyone exists at a personal substinance level. Ranching, butcher shops, professional leather tanning facilities, and similar things were all developed so specific trades could do these things to contribute to society and humanity as a whole could thus invest effort in other directions besides basic survival. I feel no guilt over it, and find it lulzeworthy when someone acts like I'm a hypocrit because I'm not trying to run down deer in "fair combat" with my fingernails. I mean I did develop a a tool user, I have a brain and almost as importantly an opposable thumb, my species has developed a society that can produce some really great tools like guns, I feel no guilt over it what so ever. If I was out hunting I am doing it not for the sport, but because I want to eat that bloody thing, not compete with it. It lost the competition when I became self aware and got thumbs and it didn't.
I personally think we do need to reduce the human population, but not so we can create more habitats for animals. Simply because we need to lower our own consumption of resources until such a time as we can move on to find more resources and expand our population.
I don't believe in animal cruelty for the same of animal cruelty, I mean there is no excuse for why someone should stick a cat in a microwave just to watch it slowly roast to death from the inside out. On the other hand when it comes down to need, I very much believe in "humans first" and that includes our comfort in doing the things we evolved to do like eat food and wear animal hides of various sorts.
I do however see PETA's point of view, and understand it while I oppose it. It's just we fundementally disagree on what role humans should play and what our fundemental existance should be like. PETA tends to come from the same school of thought that preaches general non-violence, the abolishment of most technology to minimize it's footprint, and people striving to become pacifist meterosexuals. Not every member of PETA believes in all of those things, nor does everyone who believes in some of those things support PETA, but the circles do have a *general* tendency to run together. You might also notice that I disagree with most of those viewpoints in general, and while I do go "left" on some things I very much wind up agreeing with the "right" far more often. Despite not being directly associated with any of the major parties, I very much see things like PETA as being the children of left wing philsophy, and this is one of the minor factors that has contributed to my thought processes today.
The position of PETA is that humans have transcended the need to prey on animals. The basic attitude is that we are at a point where we can survive as vegans, eating meat or even hunting animals for their hides is no longer a nessecity, but something we do for conveinence and pleasure which is what makes it wrong. Their arguement is that you eat meat because it tastes good, and you want to wear clothing made from animal hides because you find that it looks good and is comfortable, you don't HAVE to do either of these things as alternatives exist.
When it comes to medical testing PETA's basic arguement is that we have enough medical technology right now that is tested to keep people living longer than any point in history. Indeed one of the few points I agree with them on (in isolation) is that human overpopulation is an issue, and that longer lifespans at the moment is counter productive to our survival as a species until we obtain more living space via space travel, or greatly reduce the population through some method (like warfare). Their point in stopping animal testing is not that we should test on humans, but that we should halt the development of medical technology all together since we don't need it. There is no reason to develop anything further. While I agree with them on overpopulation in a general sense, I do not agree with their stance on developing medical technology.
When it comes to releasing animals into the wild, PETA's argument is that all of these creatures, including things like cattle, survived for thousands of years without human interferance. Domestication of animals in their mind is what renders them incapable of survival, they see a sort of careful protection and re-intergration of domesticated wildlife into the wilderness as the way to go. Something which is insane and impractical, but the central logic requires a few more logical steps down the path to become ridiculous than the simple statement of them wanting to re-intergrate animals.
Speaking for myself, I am one of those people that disagrees with PETA on a fundemental level. I for one do not see violence and aggression as something to be overcome, but rather assimilated into society. That's part of what makes people human, and a lot of good has come from those impulses. Without those instincts we would not have dominated the planet and it's enviroment to the point where we would be having arguements like this. We'd probably have been exterminated by predators long ago (with little room for a middle ground).
To some extent I think one of the big problems with society today is that we attempt to reign in violent impulses a lot more than we should, and it leads to a lot of the problems we currently see. There are problems with a society being run on a principle of "might makes right" but at the same time just as many problems exist by attempting to remove violence and competition from the social order entirely and run everything under a "tyranny of the pen" as we see now. Truthfully I feel the original intent of the US was to try and create a middle ground in how it would be run. Things like our "right to keep and bear arms" existing both to ensure the population not be helpless against it's goverment, but I also feel to try and head off the issue of entirely bureaucratic and administrative domination. In a system totally run by paperwork and the scholorly interpetation of laws, you see just as much Tyranny as you would in a system where the biggest, meanest guy controlled everything, it's just that today it's a matter of who can find the most loopholes in the legal system and play the system the best. It's another form of the same exact thing. I believe the idea was (and should get back to) a combination of methods where both options balance each other, and someone can neither totally dominate through martial power, or administrative manipulation. Oddly when you look at blue law and the situations in which someone could be called out or challenged to a duel in most states (you couldn't just do it and castrate the whole system) I think there was a solid foundation for running a balanced society, albiet I think the rules needed to grow with society as opposed to being removed.
To some extent the whole situation reminding me of the old movie "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance". The basic premise is that there is an outlaw called Liberty (think on that name) working for a cattle baron to oppress a town and force it to do what he wants. A weedy lawyer (Jimmy Stuart if I remember) shows up and starts telling all the people they don't have to abide this. Needless to say Liberty objects, but John Wayne (the good version of Liberty Valance) the local tough-guy homesteader keeps driving him off. Your supposed to empathize with the Lawyer (and probably do). John Wayne however believes everyone needs to stand on their own two feet, and realizes that given the inevitability of a confrontation even if he teaches the lawyer how to shoot he'll never be able to take down Liberty. Things eventually come to a head where the Lawyer is forced to go out to fight Liberty in an affair of honor, he can't win, but as they are drawing their guns John Wayne (hiding in an alley) shoots Liberty in the back at the same time the Lawyer is drawing so everyone thinks he did it. Sacrificing his own integrity and code of living so people could live entirely under the rule of law. However an important subtext of the movie is that while this was good in the short term we all know how it all kind of turns out (the world we live in) the way John Wayne looks when drinking after shooting the guy says a lot, as does the fact that the movie both starts and ends with the Lawyer attending John Wayne's funeral and remembering that he was the true hero of the piece. The real man who shot Liberty Valance was hardly a lawbringer. Also while Liberty was a bad guy in the movie (you sort of see two sides of the coin between him and John Wayne) understand that part of the message is Liberty was killed for Law. Incidently the game "Red Dead Redemption" explores a lot of these same things, albiet in a far more direct fashion.
The point I'm getting at with this long rant is that agreeing with PETA pretty much relies on you agreeing with the central principles of what humanity should be striving for. Not everyone does, and even as far back as black and white movies, questions have been being raised about whether violent and predatory instincts are something to be overcome, or part of our nature that we should instead find a way to live with. I think the latter is the proper course as humans are both predators and social animals at the same time, add self awareness to this and there isn't anything quite like us out there that we know of to draw a parallel with.
I for one see no reason why we should not eat meat, and wear animal hide, it's what we were designed to do. Sure, I don't personally hunt and skin animals, instead I learned to do other things before I became disabled. Part of the point of developing a civilization was getting to the point where not everyone exists at a personal substinance level. Ranching, butcher shops, professional leather tanning facilities, and similar things were all developed so specific trades could do these things to contribute to society and humanity as a whole could thus invest effort in other directions besides basic survival. I feel no guilt over it, and find it lulzeworthy when someone acts like I'm a hypocrit because I'm not trying to run down deer in "fair combat" with my fingernails. I mean I did develop a a tool user, I have a brain and almost as importantly an opposable thumb, my species has developed a society that can produce some really great tools like guns, I feel no guilt over it what so ever. If I was out hunting I am doing it not for the sport, but because I want to eat that bloody thing, not compete with it. It lost the competition when I became self aware and got thumbs and it didn't.
I personally think we do need to reduce the human population, but not so we can create more habitats for animals. Simply because we need to lower our own consumption of resources until such a time as we can move on to find more resources and expand our population.
I don't believe in animal cruelty for the same of animal cruelty, I mean there is no excuse for why someone should stick a cat in a microwave just to watch it slowly roast to death from the inside out. On the other hand when it comes down to need, I very much believe in "humans first" and that includes our comfort in doing the things we evolved to do like eat food and wear animal hides of various sorts.
I do however see PETA's point of view, and understand it while I oppose it. It's just we fundementally disagree on what role humans should play and what our fundemental existance should be like. PETA tends to come from the same school of thought that preaches general non-violence, the abolishment of most technology to minimize it's footprint, and people striving to become pacifist meterosexuals. Not every member of PETA believes in all of those things, nor does everyone who believes in some of those things support PETA, but the circles do have a *general* tendency to run together. You might also notice that I disagree with most of those viewpoints in general, and while I do go "left" on some things I very much wind up agreeing with the "right" far more often. Despite not being directly associated with any of the major parties, I very much see things like PETA as being the children of left wing philsophy, and this is one of the minor factors that has contributed to my thought processes today.
