• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

PETA President's Will

Segnosaur said:
Define what you mean by 'good cause'.

Remember, PETA is not just pushing for better treatment of animals. They are supposedly pushing for an equality between humans and animals. This means:
- No eating of meat
- No medical research on animals. Say goodbye to around 90% of all medical research into things like AIDS
- No use of animal products of any type. Ok, maybe not having fur coats isn't such a hardship. But many heart operations (some use pig valves), flu vaccines (chicken eggs) and other treatments that save lives would no longer be possible.

And then their is the fact that PETA ended up killing dozens of animals left at its shelters.

If you want to try to make sure animals have a 'good life', give to your local humane society (or a respectable nature preservation group).
Click to expand...

They are pushing stupid.
 
I would be down to eat Ingrid's barbequed corpse (if it was safe of course) to show just how much I don't give a bleep that humans are made out of flesh too. As if everyone one earth doesn't realize that humans are made of flesh.

If PETA focused more on their cause and less on outrageous stunts, they might actually convince people to lessen their use of animal products.
 
Segnosaur said:
Define what you mean by 'good cause'.

Remember, PETA is not just pushing for better treatment of animals. They are supposedly pushing for an equality between humans and animals. This means:
- No eating of meat
- No medical research on animals. Say goodbye to around 90% of all medical research into things like AIDS
- No use of animal products of any type. Ok, maybe not having fur coats isn't such a hardship. But many heart operations (some use pig valves), flu vaccines (chicken eggs) and other treatments that save lives would no longer be possible.
Click to expand...
I'd say its ok to slaughter animals for food, infect them diseases and cancers, and use their organs for transplantation only in the areas where it would be acceptable to use a mentally similar human in the exact same way.
 
Wow, that will is actually pretty metal. Sounds like a Carcass album. \m/
 
CynicalSkeptic said:
However, Exceptions can be made for insulin-dependant Sr. VP's of the group.
Click to expand...
I think you need to update your anti-PETA cheatsheet:
In the 1980s, researchers used genetic engineering to manufacture a human insulin. In 1982, the Eli Lilly Corporation produced a human insulin that became the first approved genetically engineered pharmaceutical product. Without needing to depend on animals, researchers could produce genetically engineered insulin in unlimited supplies. It also did not contain any of the animal contaminants. Using human insulin also took away any concerns about transferring any potential animal diseases into the insulin. While companies still sell a small amount of insulin produced from animals—mostly porcine—from the 1980s onwards, insulin users increasingly moved to a form of human insulin created through recombinant DNA technology. According to the Eli Lilly Corporation, in 2001 95% of insulin users in most parts of the world take some form of human insulin. Some companies have stopped producing animal insulin completely. Companies are focusing on synthesizing human insulin and insulin analogs, a modification of the insulin molecule in some way.
Click to expand...
.
 
Do they REALLY imagine Newkirk's detached Thumb Up mounted on a plaque would be an incentive to work harder? Do they imagine such an item would be considered a reward?

And again, would a Newkirk thumb down really dissuade me from displeasing PETA?

Now that I ponder it, perhaps I'll append my will to have my middle finger sent to PETA postmortem. After all, I won't be using it any longer, and it seems like such a small thing for a good cause.
 
Ya, I don't get it either. You get things like
i shrieked in appalled delight when i first started reading this jaw-dropping ode to the-power-of-extremes & its message... Getting a grip on the giggling fit that hit next, i added insult to injured ears with an oratory @ the auspicious 'human bbq'. - but false bravura faltered fast as my mind absorbed the powerful simplicity of each vivid image, compounding truth on every word.
Click to expand...
posted, but all I can do is shrug. It's a body - who cares if it is turned into a purse or whatever? It surely doesn't change my opinions about animal treatment. Better to be made into a purse than rot in a vault in the earth.
 
Dessi said:
However, Exceptions can be made for insulin-dependant Sr. VP's of the group.
Click to expand...
I think you need to update your anti-PETA cheatsheet:
In the 1980s, researchers used genetic engineering to manufacture a human insulin. In 1982, the Eli Lilly Corporation produced a human insulin that became the first approved genetically engineered pharmaceutical product. Without needing to depend on animals, researchers could produce genetically engineered insulin in unlimited supplies....
.
Click to expand...
Yes, Insulin can now be produced that contains no animal products (that's why I didn't mention it earlier... I wanted to stick to places where animal products are either superior or have no alternatives.)

However, a couple of things should be mentioned:

- During at least part of her lifespan, MaryBth Sweetland (Vice-president of PETA) used Insulin that contained at least some Animal products.

From: http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/h/2628-hyperbolic-hypocrisy
"I'm an insulin-dependent diabetic. Twice a day I take synthetically manufactured insulin that still contains some animal products -- and I have no qualms about it ... I'm not going to take the chance of killing myself by not taking insulin. I don't see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals."
Now, this was from the Center for Consumer Freedom (so yes, I can't blame you for being skeptical since its not a perfect source), but they were quoting a 1990 issue from Glamor magazine, which is a mainstream publication. (And Pen&Teller provided some verification on their show)

So yes, you can produce insulin that has no animal products, but even if she has gone the all-artificial route now, its still hypocritical for her to deny similar life-saving treatments to others when she herself was willing to use animal products when it suited her.

- I could also point out that even if she never touched a drop of insulin that contained animal products, they wouldn't have even developed insulin treatments had they not done testing on animals first.
 
Why wait? Can't we carry out her wishes now?

Segnosaur said:
Remember, PETA is not just pushing for better treatment of animals. They are supposedly pushing for an equality between humans and animals. This means:
- No eating of meat
- No medical research on animals. Say goodbye to around 90% of all medical research into things like AIDS
- No use of animal products of any type. Ok, maybe not having fur coats isn't such a hardship. But many heart operations (some use pig valves), flu vaccines (chicken eggs) and other treatments that save lives would no longer be possible.
Click to expand...
And NO PETS! (or slaves, as PETA calls them) Don't forget that.

That woman is crackers.
 
CynicalSkeptic said:
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cach...fe+to+fight+for+the+rights+of+animals.”&hl=en
"I'm an insulin-dependent diabetic. Twice a day I take synthetically manufactured insulin that still contains some animal products -- and I have no qualms about it ... I'm not going to take the chance of killing myself by not taking insulin. I don't see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals."
--Glamour, January 1990
Click to expand...
That link didn't work for me, so it's difficult to trace back the source of that quote.
Click to expand...
Understandable, since back in 1990 (when the quote would have been made) media organizations were not posting things on the internet.

However, as I pointed out, Penn&Teller did an episode on their show B.S. where they also pointed out Sweetland's comments. Even if I'm skeptical of the 'consumer freedom' web site, I trust the research staff of Penn&Teller.
 
Segnosaur said:
I could also point out that even if she never touched a drop of insulin that contained animal products, they wouldn't have even developed insulin treatments had they not done testing on animals first.
Click to expand...
I don't want to Godwin the thread, but consider the following: in WWII, Nazis performed medical experiments on POWs, some where more dubious than others. In particular, there were problems where their pilots would pass out when flying in high altitudes or making sharp banked turns at high speed, there were problems where soldiers would storm a shore in cold water only to die of hypothermia 10 minutes after arriving on shore. So, using the POWs, researchers performed experiments using people in vacuum chambers, high-G centrifuges, sitting in ice tanks, blood transfusions, severing and reattaching limbs, organ transplantations, and so on to determine how to revive them.

Occasionally, some experiments revealed facts that contradicted existing knowledge. In the case of treating hypothermia, it was believed that heating a hypothermic person too quickly could cause death due to shock, but experiments showed active rapid warming is more effective than passive gradual warming. No journal medical will publish these studies due to the unethical way they were obtained.

Likewise, the Tuskeegee syphilis studies, which helped develop penicillin treatments for syphilis using non-consenting subjects. In Guatemala, prostitutes and prison inmates were deliberately infected with diseases to test to effectiveness of penicillin in humans.

There is a huge amount of life-saving medical knowledge which has unethical origins. If the claim that the discovery of insulin from animal testing justifies animal testing, then an equivalent and equally persuasive argument can be made to justify human experimentation.
 
Last edited:
Dessi said:
I'd say its ok to slaughter animals for food, infect them diseases and cancers, and use their organs for transplantation only in the areas where it would be acceptable to use a mentally similar human in the exact same way.
Click to expand...

Finally someone that agrees with me!

Oh, wait. You meant... uh...

Nevermind!

:D
 
Dessi said:
There is a huge amount of life-saving medical knowledge which has unethical origins. If the claim that the discovery of insulin from animal testing justifies animal testing, then an equivalent and equally persuasive argument can be made to justify human experimentation.
Click to expand...
I believe that you you are assuming your conclusion (that people and animals are morally equivelent).
 
Dessi said:
I don't want to Godwin the thread, but consider the following: in WWII, Nazis performed medical experiments on POWs, some where more dubious than others.
...
There is a huge amount of life-saving medical knowledge which has unethical origins. If the claim that the discovery of insulin from animal testing justifies animal testing, then an equivalent and equally persuasive argument can be made to justify human experimentation.
Click to expand...
The difference is.... I'm not the one trying to "claim the moral high ground".

PETA has stated that "all animal testing is wrong". Every little bit of it. All black-and-white, no shades of grey.

On the other hand, I recognize the fact that these problems are never clearly defined. I have no problem with animal testing that saves lives (although I do want the animals to not be subject to unnecessary extreme stress). What is "acceptable" doesn't have a perfect definition.

By the way, I notice that you never addressed the other part of the post... that the VP used a product that was developed through animal testing, but also used those animal products herself.
 
roger said:
I believe that you you are assuming your conclusion (that people and animals are morally equivelent).
Click to expand...

As a skeptic, I am generally suspicious of cultural norms. People are raised from birth to accept a certain set of values without really knowing why they're true. Even things that people take for granted, like prohibitions on murder other humans, I've found that most people don't really have a very good understanding of the issue.

I've personally been interested in animal rights for the past 6 or 7 years. I was initially on your side, until I actually took the time to participate in discussions. In pretty much every serious discussion on the topic, I find arguments against animal rights notoriously uncritical ("they're tasty" which automatically justifies slaughtering people for the same reason, "we're omnivores" as if the naturalistic fallacy doesn't count in this case, "they aren't rational" with no explanation for why non-rational humans are always morally advantaged over mentally similar animals, "animals aren't people" as if species was a moral characteristic). Just recently I came across "might makes right".

The real serious arguments that justify a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals just aren't there, its a cultural norm which has no rational basis in anything.

As a skeptic, I've generally come to the conclusion that there is no credible moral distinction between humans and mentally similar animals, they're moral equals.
 
Last edited:
so let me ask this: if there was a human being who had the same level of brain function as a cauliflower, would you consider it acceptable to eat this human being?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom