Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[JayUtah]

They atleast have sense of touch and sense for life.

No.

 

[JayUtah]

I feel, your above post suggest somewhat that. Let the discussions complete before putting harsh remarks.

His remarks were harsh but honest. You misrepresented his claims. I called you on it earlier by labeling it a straw man. You responded to that, but did not satisfy my request that you analyze your part of the argument and determine how it was a straw-man argument.

You owe MRC_Hans an apology for misrepresenting him. You owe me an answer to my request. Stop trying to act hurt.

 

[Kumar]

That's right, you don't currently understand. It has taken several attempts to get you to even begin thinking critically about your sources and even begin to contemplate performing due diligence on them. You responded to information about your sources with a knee-jerk reaction to defend them. A conscientious person doesn't lash out others when it becomes apparent he understands less of a subject than they.

The only consideration to put that link was "Human's natural diet" as it looked bit logical but not PETA as a whole.

They believe that any keeping or control of animals by humans is "enslavement" and that such a condition is worse than death. (Except, of course, when it's used to produce the insulin that keeps one of their high-ranking officers alive. Then it's okay.)

If so, it will just be one sided angle esp for those animals which need us and which can become friendly to us.

The animals I keep personally are in a symbiotic relationship. My cats perform a service I value, in return for which I exercise care in enriching and prolonging their lives. My dogs perform a service I value, and would not be viable organisms (e.g., one is blind, the other was lame) without my ongoing care. It would be difficult, in my estimation, to call that cruelty.

True esp when they live like in a family atmosphere not in compulsion or captivity.

The animals I eat as food were bred and raised for that purpose. Without the purpose, the species would not exist. Without the purpose, the individual animals would not exist -- at least in so many numbers. As I said, my brother-in-law's family operates a cattle ranch large enough to be seen from space. I have seen how the animals are cared for and treated in large numbers, on a large scale. When these animals die or otherwise render their service, it is to fulfill a purpose: food, clothing, protection, lifesaving medicines and other procedures. You hear about these things and knee-jerkedly equate them with greed and gluttony.

It is debatable because they are raised for self interests/commercial purpose not for service, symbiosis or friendship purpose.

PETA believes in neither of these purposes. They have "rescued" thousands of animals, by which they mean they have removed thousands of animals from environments they deemed unhealthy or immoral for no reason other than that disapproval. But what to do with them then? They can't keep the animals themselves, because that would just be "enslavement" under different circumstances. They can't give them over to other caretakers -- again, just more "enslavement." They don't have the resources to rehabilitate all the animals for return to life in their natural habitats, even if such a thing would be possible. PETA tells you they are therefore pinioned by circumstances to euthanize the animals. Death is better than captivity in any form, in their mind.



But PETA is pinioned by nothing more than their own perverted moral view. They have explicitly adopted a no-compromise stance for their moral edicts (except, as noted, when it hits too close to home). This irrational approach cuts off reasonable alternatives, but PETA advertises itself as a "radical" organization and so obviously isn't overly concerned with being reasonable. To put it bluntly, perfectly good animals die by PETA's hand only to demonstrate PETA's political resolve.

Their motto seems to be to give respectable or required death to those poor animals who are unfit to live healthy natural life and do not get any one who can adopt them. Although it is not like human to human type practice but they take animals differently.
Enslavement is not there in all cases.

Now stand there and tell me with a straight face that this is a better justification than the ones I gave you above for the reasonable breeding and keeping of animals. I dare you.

Even worse, the simplistic, delusional moral model put out by Ingrid Newkirk and others is based on the presumption that animals and humans are equivalent in all respects. Animal keeping is enslavement. Eating meat is cannibalism. This is not just hyperbole; this is what they actually teach. You seem to have fallen for it hook-line-and-sinker. Not only does this lead them unwarrantedly to exalt even the lowliest animal species, it leads them to devalue human life. This group feels fully justified not only in killing animals rather than letting them fall into "captivity," but in putting humans in danger. PETA encourages and gives money to militants who commit crimes against humans when they believe animals are at stake.

As per my last reply pls.

Because of the flood of slick propaganda they send out, which omits the gory details of what they actually do and focuses instead on what looks good on paper. Just like you, many people don't exercise due diligence. If you get a glossy brochure telling you about rescuing animals from unsanitary and inhumane factory farms or circuses where they are tortured for entertainment, you would be inclined on that basis to fork over fifty bucks -- hey, it's tax deductible, and it seems like a good cause.

Obviously those brochures don't tell the darker side, which is that they can't (and don't want to) keep the animals they rescue so they just kill them. They don't tell you about fronting and funding the Animal Liberation Front and other violent criminal organizations. They don't tell you that they spend more money encouraging and defending these militants than they do actually rescuing and caring for animals. You have to look for these facts, and many people -- like you -- just don't bother to do that. PETA hires hotshot publicists to keep enough glossy information easily available and to dance around the more egregious exploits. They hire enough sharp lawyers to go after people who denigrate them.

But even still there are enough people who know all this about PETA and still contribute anyway. Just because something doesn't make sense doesn't mean you can't get people excited about it enough to support it.



We've given you the facts about PETA. There is no "point of view" that matters a whole lot after that. It's odd that you would want to go read their spin rather than to ascertain what the facts are.

Yes, anything done for some vested commercial selfish intreasts ignoring moral and humanity will be more odd than not doing. Irreligion in the name of religion should be much bigger irreligion or sin than not following the religion.

 

[Kumar]

No.

Some plants clearly show sense of touch. I think, they also feel vibrations. Sunlight affect on them and moving towards sunlight soure, roots towards water/nutrient source should suggest they have sense for life.

 

[Kumar]

His remarks were harsh but honest. You misrepresented his claims. I called you on it earlier by labeling it a straw man. You responded to that, but did not satisfy my request that you analyze your part of the argument and determine how it was a straw-man argument.

You owe MRC_Hans an apology for misrepresenting him. You owe me an answer to my request. Stop trying to act hurt.

It is just the matter of specific POV. We can not tolerate slight logical hurt but want to hurt too much others even by taking their life. Bit one sided approach in our self interest or ego. Sorry.

 

[Kumar]

No, it doesn't.

Do you feel, if you will beat or even shout a dog or other animal/bird daily he can stay with you just for food, if free to move anywhere?

 

[Kumar]

He may have been, but here's what I read: Kumar said

​

which expresses his central assumption, that animals have emotional and intellectual properties that make them recognize humans as superior and as having certain intentions. MRC_Hans, appropriately enough, answered in part

​

Kumar's response to that was

​

The highlighted portions show Kumar's misrepresentation. Hans didn't say they had "no" cognition, just not enough to exhibit the higher-order reasoning Kumar was trying to attribute to them. That's where I accused Kumar of committing a straw-man fallacy.

How feeling(emotions) and cognition in pet animals can't be taken as sufficient intelligence? By becoming pet, don't they apply sufficient intelligence for a purpose of getting nursing, protection, food, companionship etc? May it be more than adult or aged humans who may not get these in all cases? So all these terms, I used are somewhat synonymous in sense to each other.

 

[bruto]

I feel, your above post suggest somewhat that. Let the discussions complete before putting harsh remarks.

If your post is not complete or accurate when you make it, don't hit the "submit" button. If you make an inaccurate statement, the possibility of correcting it in the future is no excuse and anyone with a grain of either intelligence or integrity would be embarrassed to use it.

 

[Kumar]

If your post is not complete or accurate when you make it, don't hit the "submit" button. If you make an inaccurate statement, the possibility of correcting it in the future is no excuse and anyone with a grain of either intelligence or integrity would be embarrassed to use it.

For it, I have to leave courtesy i.e to reply to some very specific and limited posts not to all or most. Difficult to deal in somewhat 1:10 ratio.

 

[fagin]

For it, I have to leave courtesy i.e to reply to some very specific and limited posts not to all or most. Difficult to deal in somewhat 1:10 ratio.

Doesn't that ratio make you stop and think that what you are posting is absolute bollocks?

 

[Mojo]

Do you feel, if you will beat or even shout a dog or other animal/bird daily he can stay with you just for food, if free to move anywhere?

What has that got to do with your misrepresentation of what Hans posted?

 

[Kumar]

Why does PETA use controversial tactics?
...It is sometimes necessary to shake people up in order to initiate discussion, debate, questioning of the status quo, and, of course, action.

Thus, we try to make our actions colorful and controversial, thereby grabbing headlines around the world and spreading the message of kindness to animals to thousands—sometimes millions—of people. This approach has proved amazingly successful:
https://www.peta.org/about-peta/faq/why-does-peta-use-controversial-tactics/

It is on PETA site. Probably they manipulate things to get publicity.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I think he was responding to me. Got to keep the lies lined up in a row so they do not stray accidentally into the territory of truth.

Well, he was quoting me in that post. But at least he has learned to use the quote function. It wasn't always like that. So we must be grateful for a little.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Some plants clearly show sense of touch. I think, they also feel vibrations. Sunlight affect on them and moving towards sunlight soure, roots towards water/nutrient source should suggest they have sense for life.

Kumar when you touch a light switch, it turns the light on (or off). Do you take that to mean that the light switch feels anything?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Do you feel, if you will beat or even shout a dog or other animal/bird daily he can stay with you just for food, if free to move anywhere?

Yes, that is clearly the case. I have seen lots of people treating their dog in such a way that, had I been the dog, I would have bitten them and run away.

But animals don't think that way. Actually, not even people.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

How feeling(emotions) and cognition in pet animals can't be taken as sufficient intelligence? By becoming pet, don't they apply sufficient intelligence for a purpose of getting nursing, protection, food, companionship etc? May it be more than adult or aged humans who may not get these in all cases? So all these terms, I used are somewhat synonymous in sense to each other.

No you don't get to redefine "intelligence" into something else.

Hans

 

[Kumar]

Euthanizing shelter animals
PETA opposes the no-kill movement,[99] and, according to its most recent filing with The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS), euthanized 81 percent of the animals that ended up at its shelter.[100] According to VDACS, PETA took 3,017 animals into its shelters in 2014, of which 2,455 were euthanized, 162 were adopted, 353 were released to other shelters, and 6 were reclaimed by their original owners.[101] The group justifies its euthanasia policies toward animals who are not adopted by saying that it takes in feral cat colonies with diseases such as feline AIDS and leukemia, stray dogs, litters of parvo-infected puppies, and backyard dogs and says that it would be unrealistic to follow a no-kill policy in such instances.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals

The deatils about euthanizing of animals by PETA and justification to it, is given in above quote. However it is also difficult to me to endorss it but who consider rational angles can comment accordingly.

 

[Kumar]

Kumar when you touch a light switch, it turns the light on (or off). Do you take that to mean that the light switch feels anything?

Hans

Light switch is not live being and natural but plants are. Can't say how much valid but someone used classical music to play daily in his garden and felt, his plants grown much better than others. If ok, it can also interpret feeling vibration or somewhat hearing sense.

 

[Kumar]

No you don't get to redefine "intelligence" into something else.

Hans

Many time I feel, probably a child is more intelligent than adult(naturally) because he always progress and gain inspite of doing so many odds. Similar look like with the animals.

 

[fagin]

Er no, Kumar.