PETA Tries to Guilt Animals Out of Mafia Wars

[qbanknight]

Response from Zynaga:
"Hahhahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahah! *snort, ah that was a good joke"

 

[TheDoctor455]

Isn't PETA just a bunch of hypocritical morons? That's what I always hear.

Yeah pretty much.
For example: PETA always bitches whenever any humane society is forced to euthanize an animal (after exhausting all other options), whilst PETA euthanizes over 2/3 of the animals it brings in (without even looking for other options).

I wonder what it will be like in the future when there are too many people in the world.

Will there be a PETH when they have to put down all the kids we won't be able to feed due to world over-population? Or will it be more like Logans Run?

My guess: nuclear war.

 

[Zani]

I'm not a PeTA representative, and I'm not a vegetarian (though I am looking into cooking vegan), but thanks for trying to set up a Circumstantial Ad Hominem [http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html] attack. Because really, even if I were a representative for PeTA or a vegetation, vegan, or a dedicated carnivore, that doesn't change the factual truth of anything I say. As it happens, I'm just someone who's actually read Animal Liberation.

We don't sacrifice "a few" animals to testing. We burn through thousands of animals per thousands of inane, useless, tests (100 million vertebrates, according to the BUAV). The majority of these are for things that don't contribute to human wellbeing, aside from the careers of a few researchers. No one needs to perform IC50 or Draize tests. We know what happens if an irritant gets in your eye and you're unable to blink it away. We know what happens when you drink floor cleaner. We don't need to know what happens when you drink Floor Cleaner Lite. For the tests that are actually relevant to saving lives of the terminally ill? Animal rights activists won't have as many problems with them, but the ones that require animal testing are few and far between. Surely far less than 100 million vertebrates.

It's the suffering of animals for frivolous purposes, like pleasure or career animal experimentation, that animal rights activists take issue with.

If I sound condescending, it's because I'm tired of your ignorant fallacy ridden attacks on something you haven't bothered to understand.

So you're a hypocrite instead of a vegan? Good to know.

Yes some animal testing is useless but, it isn't only "the suffering of animals for frivolous purposes, like pleasure or career animal experimentation, that animal rights activists take issue with." they want to stop all kinds of animal testing, irrelevant or not.

And how about stopping linking from that "Nizkor" site it just makes you come off as pretentious and desperate to defend your viewpoint.

Honestly, I don't care about your opinion and I've got better things to do than argue on the internet.

 

[Naheal]

I think you misunderstand what PeTA's trying to do. As I've already said, what they're doing isn't an attempt to shut down Mafia Wars because they think the game's going to cause animal violence. Mafia Wars' introduction of combat animals is appropriate for PeTA because it's a popular online game, and people who play the game will notice these kinds of headlines, and PeTA's got free publicity. This isn't about censoring Mafia Wars, it's about PeTA using the media coverage as a platform to talk about "bully breeds." It's smart activism, not ignorant censorship as you're mistaking it to be.

As an aside, appeal to pity is not a fallacy if it's relevant, such as the ethical case for extending empathy to animals with the capacity to suffer. It's only a fallacy in a situation like, "I deserve tenure because I'm sick and my wife left me."

So why haven't they gone after Bioware for Dragon Age yet (Mabari Hound)? Blizzard (Slaughter 20 of x creature quests in every zone)?

 

[Kris015]

Hahahaha! Oh, PETA i love you.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

So you're a hypocrite instead of a vegan? Good to know.

Yes some animal testing is useless but, it isn't only "the suffering of animals for frivolous purposes, like pleasure or career animal experimentation, that animal rights activists take issue with." they want to stop all kinds of animal testing, irrelevant or not.

And how about stopping linking from that "Nizkor" site it just makes you come off as pretentious and desperate to defend your viewpoint.

Honestly, I don't care about your opinion and I've got better things to do than argue on the internet.

1) Hypocrisy is irrelevant to factual claims. Additionally, I've only been making factual claims about what animal rights activists do, so even though it would be useless to call me a hypocrite, you have no grounds to do so.
2) You say that the animal liberation movement wants to stop all animal testing, but that's not Peter Singer's argument. You'll notice that I also said they won't have "as many" concerns.
3) Essential medical testing does not make up for a fraction of the 100 million vertebrates experimented on.
4) Nizkor is a site primarily dedicated to combating holocaust denial, and one of the services they provide is hosting a catalog of fallacies, written by a Professor of Psychology for an online project. I only link to it so I don't have to explain the many ways you're wrong when you call someone a hypocrite to dismiss an argument. I link to it so I don't have to explain:

The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.

The site can do that for me.

Are you done making a fool of yourself?

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

I think you misunderstand what PeTA's trying to do. As I've already said, what they're doing isn't an attempt to shut down Mafia Wars because they think the game's going to cause animal violence. Mafia Wars' introduction of combat animals is appropriate for PeTA because it's a popular online game, and people who play the game will notice these kinds of headlines, and PeTA's got free publicity. This isn't about censoring Mafia Wars, it's about PeTA using the media coverage as a platform to talk about "bully breeds." It's smart activism, not ignorant censorship as you're mistaking it to be.

As an aside, appeal to pity is not a fallacy if it's relevant, such as the ethical case for extending empathy to animals with the capacity to suffer. It's only a fallacy in a situation like, "I deserve tenure because I'm sick and my wife left me."

So why haven't they gone after Bioware for Dragon Age yet (Mabari Hound)? Blizzard (Slaughter 20 of x creature quests in every zone)?

I don't know about Dragon Age, but there have been similar campaigns in WoW. Like with this case, it's more concerned with spreading awareness for real cases of violence than ending virtual ones.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,513229,00.html

Maybe you missed it?

 

[Naheal]

I don't know about Dragon Age, but there have been similar campaigns "against" Blizzard.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,513229,00.html

Maybe you missed it?

Probably because it's from fox and friends, but yes.

 

[Rawker]

The road to stupidity is paved in good intentions.

PETA, stop making bricks, you've given us quite enough.

I also blame Disney for their support base.

 

[darkknight9]

Oh the Pathetically Ethically Twisted Asses are at it again huh? Why do we keep giving these fruitcakes the time of day?

Killing animals is wrong! (Unless PETA does it)
Medical research on animals is wrong! (Unless it benefits a member of PETA)
Don't do what we do! (Do what we say!)

Seriously, stick to the hot chicks wearing lettuce bikini's. You're less annoying that way.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

I don't know about Dragon Age, but there have been similar campaigns "against" Blizzard.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,513229,00.html

Maybe you missed it?

Probably because it's from fox and friends, but yes.

It's not "from" fox. That's just the first link that came up.

I feel a little dirty now, though.

 

[Kimarous]

I really have to ask... who takes PETA seriously any more, besides it's members?

 

[Quiet Stranger]

It's a game, the animals don't even exist.
What the hell?

Besides, last time I checked, PETA murdered more animals than meat eaters did.

I would love to hear this one (how PETA, people who are fucking animal crazy kill more then meat eaters do)

 

[darkknight9]

Isn't PETA just a bunch of hypocritical morons? That's what I always hear.

Yeah pretty much.
For example: PETA always bitches whenever any humane society is forced to euthanize an animal (after exhausting all other options), whilst PETA euthanizes over 2/3 of the animals it brings in (without even looking for other options).

I wonder what it will be like in the future when there are too many people in the world.

Will there be a PETH when they have to put down all the kids we won't be able to feed due to world over-population? Or will it be more like Logans Run?

My guess: nuclear war.

Logans Run kicked ass! I haven't seen that movie in years!!!!

 

[CloggedDonkey]

for once, I don't know who I hate more. that(censored) that runs Zynga, or P.E.T.A. and can you guys please, for just a week, not say anything about Zynga? I would stop bitching about anything with the site ever again if you did that, as well as be a little happier.

OT: I doubt it will work too, as we all know Pincus has no heart, only a black hole made out of money and spyware.

 

[Zani]

So you're a hypocrite instead of a vegan? Good to know.

Yes some animal testing is useless but, it isn't only "the suffering of animals for frivolous purposes, like pleasure or career animal experimentation, that animal rights activists take issue with." they want to stop all kinds of animal testing, irrelevant or not.

And how about stopping linking from that "Nizkor" site it just makes you come off as pretentious and desperate to defend your viewpoint.

Honestly, I don't care about your opinion and I've got better things to do than argue on the internet.

1) Hypocrisy is irrelevant to factual claims. Additionally, I've only been making factual claims about what animal rights activists do, so even though it would be useless to call me a hypocrite, you have no grounds to do so.
2) You say that the animal liberation movement wants to stop all animal testing, but that's not Peter Singer's argument. You'll notice that I also said they won't have "as many" concerns.
3) Essential medical testing does not make up for a fraction of the 100 million vertebrates experimented on.
4) Nizkor is a site primarily dedicated to combating holocaust denial, and one of the services they provide is hosting a catalog of fallacies, written by a Professor of Psychology for an online project. I only link to it so I don't have to explain the many ways you're wrong when you call someone a hypocrite to dismiss an argument. I link to it so I don't have to explain:

The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.

The site can do that for me.

Are you done making a fool of yourself?

I never made the claim that hypocrisy makes your claim any less factual, now did I?

So we're both hypocrites, we both eat animals and animal products but we don't like the way that some of the animals are treated in the process.

What do you want me to say? You seem hell-bent on discrediting everything I have posted, I've already said I don't condone animal testing that isn't essential to the field of medical science or otherwise important and you seem to agree on that, somewhat.

We're never going to agree on the majority of this anyway so what's there to discuss?

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

I really have to ask... who takes PETA seriously any more, besides it's members?

I'm not a member in any capacity, and I, at the very least, don't consider them to be the joke that you seem to believe them to be.

I'd like to point out that your question's pretty much "who takes PeTA seriously except for the people who take it seriously?" It's circular logic.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

I never made the claim that hypocrisy makes your claim any less factual, now did I?

So we're both hypocrites, we both eat animals and animal products but we don't like the way that some of the animals are treated in the process.

What do you want me to say? You seem hell-bent on discrediting everything I have posted, I've already said I don't condone animal testing that isn't essential to the field of medical science or otherwise important and you seem to agree on that, somewhat.

We're never going to agree on the majority of this anyway so what's there to discuss?

No, see, hypocrisy doesn't enter into it. I've just discredited much of what you've said through valid applications of reason.

As opposed to dismissing an entire movement because of fallacies.

That's all there is to this. You're reasons for dismissing PeTA are irrelevant to this topic and there's likely nothing more to discuss.

 

[darkknight9]

PeTA stands for People for Ethical Treatment of Animals. Euthanasia of animals that won't be adopted, can't be released into the wild, and will only continue to suffer is not inconsistent with PeTA's ethical views.

So maybe you'd like to explain why when it "is not inconsistent" with their views its ok, when they get to make the decision when an animal lives or dies its ok, but if anyone else in society (Animal shelters, law enforcement, non-peta members, etc) have to make that decision they are labeled "murderer" by the peta organization?

It just seems disingenuous for an organization to protest for animal rights outside of a Humane society shouting slogans about how many animals the workers inside have killed that day when they themselves have found that it "is not inconsistent" with their overall goals.