The Big Picture: Skin Game
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
I think Bob himself said it best a while back (I think it might have been on the tail end of one of his older Game Overthinker spots); "PETA, as an organization, operates on a level of douchebagarry somewhere between Xerxes and Clay Puppington." (from Adult Swim's Moral Orel)
PETA always reeked of a twisted facist cult to me. Ingrid Newkirk has a real "I'm the god! I'm the god!" look to her.
You know, there's a saying (is that how it's called?) in brazilian portuguese: "Matar a cobra e mostrar o pau", which roughly translates to "Kill a snake and show your blackjack (or club if you prefer it)", and basically means being really brave about something, or saying or doing something that's seriously impressive and gives and example to everyone else.
Moviebob, you, sir, did a great service for a lot of people today, while also risking a lot of angry e-mails from Peta supporters. You have killed a snake and shown your club.
Moviebob, you, sir, did a great service for a lot of people today, while also risking a lot of angry e-mails from Peta supporters. You have killed a snake and shown your club.
Why can't we have animal activists like Ace Ventura? Sure, he's a fictional character played by Jim Carrey, but he knocked an old man out, slung him over his shoulder and paraded him around like a fur skinned scarf, all because the old mans lady friend was wearing one at the time.
I've never liked PETA, or their stance on pets. They're disgustingly hypocritical. I believe in animal rights, that pets and animals be treated well. I don't feel however that its wrong to eat animals, since we're omnivores and the digestive systems our bodies are equipped with are set up to eat them. The idea that some animal activists put forth, that animals don't experience jealousy or other human failings is laughable to me. They've never seen a dog get jealous when another dog gets more attention. Animals also fight for territory, which is something that humans also have a tendency to do. Its a fight for resources, even if its just better hunting ground or a watering hole. They also fight for dominance, to assert their place in the pecking order, another sign of correlation to human behavior.
There are many things I don't agree with that animal activists do, and I won't get into full detail here. But I will say that I care for animals and hate to see them mistreated, and I don't see that having them as pets is baseline mistreatment. Pets in loving homes get the chance to live full and healthy lives. Sick pets get treated whereas in the wild they would die. Even terminally ill pets get the chance to be humanely treated for their illness.
So I can never say that pets are mistreated simply by being pets. Sure there are bad pet owners, who neglect or otherwise mistreat their pets. But not all pet owners are like that.
Fuck PETA, and I hope one day people will realize just how hypocritical they are.
There are many things I don't agree with that animal activists do, and I won't get into full detail here. But I will say that I care for animals and hate to see them mistreated, and I don't see that having them as pets is baseline mistreatment. Pets in loving homes get the chance to live full and healthy lives. Sick pets get treated whereas in the wild they would die. Even terminally ill pets get the chance to be humanely treated for their illness.
So I can never say that pets are mistreated simply by being pets. Sure there are bad pet owners, who neglect or otherwise mistreat their pets. But not all pet owners are like that.
Fuck PETA, and I hope one day people will realize just how hypocritical they are.
I'm surprised you didn't say anything about Newkirk's huge fucking private home which she claimed as a "headquarters" on her tax forms so that she could use funds people sent to PETA to build without having to pay taxes on it. The whole thing is bullshit. Newkirk is not in it for the animals, no matter how much she says she is and she doesn't even believe the euthanizing bullshit. For her, it's about the money.
This, by the way, is public record because PETA claims to be a non-profit organization, so if you go looking under whatever laws your state allows you to look up public records under, you can see this for yourself.
This, by the way, is public record because PETA claims to be a non-profit organization, so if you go looking under whatever laws your state allows you to look up public records under, you can see this for yourself.
I knew most of this from before and share most of the beliefs put forward in the video. I believe animals should be treated with respect and avoid needless suffering even when they are animals used for food. The fact that Peta was against pets was new to me though and that really bothers me. Most animals live longer in captivity because they live in captivity.
Stray cats gets worms and suffers from it. Domesticated cats get worms then they get a pill which only results in some discomfort before they can go back to feeling perfectly fine. They get plenty of food and shelter. We can see the difference between stray cats and domesticated cats as the difference of living in a third world country and a wealthy country.
I have always been against the things Peta does, but now thanks to this video I am against Peta's ambitions too.
Stray cats gets worms and suffers from it. Domesticated cats get worms then they get a pill which only results in some discomfort before they can go back to feeling perfectly fine. They get plenty of food and shelter. We can see the difference between stray cats and domesticated cats as the difference of living in a third world country and a wealthy country.
I have always been against the things Peta does, but now thanks to this video I am against Peta's ambitions too.
Well, they do. I wrote a bigger response to it, but here is a detailed explanation. Please note I don't agree with this.cavalerie said:
PETA's ultimate goal is a modification of human society. They embrace a sort of hippie-utopian vision of humans living totally in peace with nature, letting animals go about and do their thing, while we do nothing but subsist on plant matter, use entirely natural plant based products, and give up most of our cities and civilization and such. This is their long-term goals from what I've read, despite the name of the group. Think of like the wookies or ewoks minus the hunting of animals, and that is what they think humanity should be. Arguements about medicine, standard of living, and all of those things are irrelevent because preserving our own lifespans and living like we do is seen as being corrupt and without those things we'd never know we were missing them, and things like shorter human lifespans simply would mean a faster turnover of humans and less of a building of societies and the resulting problems, etc... basically we go back to sort of being animals ourselves.
As far as such things go, I suppose it's no worse than many other groups, I mean plenty of people in the left wing have been going on about the same basic "back to nature" thing for a long time now, the nobility of the savage, and how everyone should live that way. It's just that PETA is better organized and more savvy about it, taking things one step at a time. The thing to understand is that there is no way to treat the enviroment, especially animals, ethically by their standards, while maintaining human civilization.
PETA's basic attitude is that it's cruel and wrong to test on animals for medical purposes and the creation of commercial products, and the assured safety of those products (ie better on animals than people) is irrelevent when we shouldn't be striving to have those things anyway.
When it comes to animal domestication, they believe in an attitude of untouched nature, but animals that have been "tainted" by humanity over thousands of years cannot return to nature and still thrive as intended. Likewise types of animals created by humanity cannot fit into a natural balance. A dog bred to be an unusually tough fighter by humans would have an unfair advantage unintended by nature and thus couldn't fit into the balance. Likewise animals bred for companionship that need people would be unable to compete (and perhaps always seek human companionship as a sort of inborn instinct) and it would be cruel to try and make them do so.
To put the latter point into perspective, look at some of the purebred dogs out there, especially things like the "toy" breeds. While there have been similar breeds in nature those traits came from, sometimes you might wonder how say a Toy Poodle could survive in nature without humans, especially seeing as it needs to have the hair around it's eyes trimmed to be able to see properly... and the answer is it really couldn't (a full sized poodle might be a bit differant). Likewise a lot of large, predatory animals were never intended to compete with things like German Shepards, Pit Bulls, and other variaties of dogs for fighting and hunting that have been continually strengthened through eugenics and pure breeding for the best traits over many, many years. Even specialized breeds like Dauchsunds (those long "sausage dogs") are a problem, as those dogs are very good at specific things. The Daugchsund for example is designed to dig into burrows of animals and kill them in their den, something that humans bred for their own purposes, and left to roam could change that entire equasion.
Now of course we could argue dogs breeding these traits out of themselves over a period of time, and so on and so forth, but the bottom line is that PETA's entire "back to nature" view has a consistant theme to it. They believe they are helping animals in general by removing certain breeds and traits. Breeds developed to be pets/friendly are removed in favor of independant animals and to reduce the chances of further domestication. Breeds with natural advantages are eliminated for the benefit of other animals. PETA doesn't say favor animals humans like, they are thinking that say a Dauchsund (again I can't remember how to spell it for sure) is unfair to burrowing rodents they were bred to hunt down and eliminate. To PETA's overall goals the rodents are just as important as the dogs. Nature intended burrowing vermin to be everywhere and dealing with them in farms and such should be a problem humanity deals with especially if it keeps us small by limiting our food supply to their way of thinking.
This is how I understand them and their mentality from various things I've read. Insane? Well not really, it's a consistant logic and ambition. Do I agree with them, no... no... just no. They aren't insane, but to me they might as well be. Among other things I think they overlook that humanity evolved the way it did for a reason (domesticating animals, and increasingly complex tools and civilization) and we were intended to be this way. Other animals can't usually domesticate other species (though there are cases of symbiotic relationships), we can, and honestly I think for us that's part of what we are, one of our traits sort of like cats and their claws.
I hate PETA. I really do. Look, I'm all for animal rights (even if I can't give up eating meat), but this... THIS just makes me sick! PETA is nothing but a bunch of hypocrites who can't see that what they are doing is sick and wrong. It's like the saying goes, "Some people are alive only because it's illegal to shoot them." But while drawing attention to them is generally a bad thing, I highly support drawing attention to their misdeeds so then I can sit back and enjoy the fireworks.
So to PETA and all of their supporters (at least, the ones who willingly support them even knowing what they do) I say this: ...kindly go fuck off and leave my cat and dog out of this!
...You fucking hypocrites.
So to PETA and all of their supporters (at least, the ones who willingly support them even knowing what they do) I say this: ...kindly go fuck off and leave my cat and dog out of this!
...You fucking hypocrites.
