PETA President's Will

[Dessi]

I've always wondered how PETA feels about experimenting on these:

Parasitic roundworms (FYI: I'm all for it.)
Fruit fly (Score one for science!)
Placozoa

Or the slaughter of countless numbers (billions?) of these:
Mosquitoes
Tsetse fly
Pin worm
Tapeworm
Cockroach
Black widow spider
Snakehead fish
Zebra mussel

See here:

Ethical vegans will almost universally acknowledge that life, in and of itself, isn't valuable. Its not biological life that matters, but biographical life and life which has an experiential welfare -- like the capacity to feel pain, pleasure, satisfaction, suffering, see one's self over time, have wants, expectations, and so on.

Plants, salmonella, ants, AI opponents in video games and such have no mental life. In what way is something harmed if it has no experiences whatsoever? How do you make an argument that being killed or staying alive is in an organisms best interests if it cannot, even in principle, prefer one outcome or the other? What moral characteristics do they have at all? Name just one which makes them comparable to an organism with experiential welfare.

This is not a controversial point of view. I'm quite certain that you support abortion up to a certain point, likely support non-voluntary euthanasia for people in a permanent vegetative state -- you might have your talking point reasons in debates, but if you're anything like me, you've probably wondered what moral characteristics early term fetuses or vegetative humans even have, how do you even harm something without a mental life in principle?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

While I agree that PETA is a publicity whore, I think people have been hitting the anti-PETA koolaid a bit hard. PETA is not anti-pet, despite what a scare quote by a single person that floats around the web might indicate. They state on their website, "Never Breed or Buy. Always Adopt. Always Spay and Neuter." Linky. As for scientific experimentation, there has been a natural trend away because animal experiments simply suck:

The value of animal experimentation has been grossly exaggerated by those with a vested economic interest in its preservation. Because animal experimentation focuses on artificially created pathology, involves confounding variables, and is undermined by differences between human and nonhuman anatomy, physiology and pathology, it is an inherently unsound method to investigate human disease processes. The billions of dollars invested annually in animal experimentation would be put to much more efficient, effective and humane use if redirected to clinical and epidemiological research and public health programs.

Linky.

And of course it is a complicated issue that I don't think a hardline knee-jerk helps us navigate.

As for euthanasia, that may be an unfortunate necessity. What is the alternative when we have limited resources to maintain our animal population?

Until dog and cat overpopulation is brought under control through spaying and neutering, we must prevent the suffering of unwanted animals in the most responsible and humane way possible. Euthanasia, performed properly, is often the most compassionate option.

From the big euthanasia section of PETA's website.

This is another serious issue that doesn't work well with the "neener neener" attitude that people use.

Yes, the people we saw on P&T were pretentious wankers, but that doesn't mean that everyone in the movement is. Yes, I agree this is stupid attention whoring. I also think their sexualised adverts are pathetically antifeminist.

But just look at their "organic" page:

Many organic and free-range farms cram thousands of animals together in sheds or mud-filled lots to increase profits, just as factory farms do, and the animals often suffer through the same mutilations—such as debeaking, dehorning, and castration without painkillers—that occur on factory farms.

Organically raised chickens on some farms suffer from higher mortality rates than drugged chickens because extremely crowded, filthy housing conditions, coupled with a lack of antibiotics, can lead to even more parasites than are already found in drugged chickens.

Linky.

That is actually pretty awesome in my book, as around these parts the "organic" fad has been in full force.

I'd hate to be defending PETA, because I dislike these monied groups that somehow blend with consumerism and try to set ground-rules for all in the movement. I think there is a lot to criticise, just not what is being criticised here.

 

[bookitty]

While I agree that PETA is a publicity whore, I think people have been hitting the anti-PETA koolaid a bit hard. PETA is not anti-pet, despite what a scare quote by a single person that floats around the web might indicate. They state on their website, "Never Breed or Buy. Always Adopt. Always Spay and Neuter." Linky. As for scientific experimentation, there has been a natural trend away because animal experiments simply suck:



Linky.

And of course it is a complicated issue that I don't think a hardline knee-jerk helps us navigate.

As for euthanasia, that may be an unfortunate necessity. What is the alternative when we have limited resources to maintain our animal population?



From the big euthanasia section of PETA's website.

This is another serious issue that doesn't work well with the "neener neener" attitude that people use.

Yes, the people we saw on P&T were pretentious wankers, but that doesn't mean that everyone in the movement is. Yes, I agree this is stupid attention whoring. I also think their sexualised adverts are pathetically antifeminist.

But just look at their "organic" page:



Linky.

That is actually pretty awesome in my book, as around these parts the "organic" fad has been in full force.

I'd hate to be defending PETA, because I dislike these monied groups that somehow blend with consumerism and try to set ground-rules for all in the movement. I think there is a lot to criticise, just not what is being criticised here.

Everything that PETA does right is already being addressed by the ASPCA, minus attention whoring, misogyny and misappropriation of donations.

 

[Dessi]

And NO PETS! (or slaves, as PETA calls them) Don't forget that.

Incorrect. See PETA's fact sheet on pets:

We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of "pet keeping"—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as "pets"—never existed. The international pastime of domesticating animals has created an overpopulation crisis; as a result, millions of unwanted animals are destroyed every year as "surplus." [...]

Because domesticated animals retain many of their basic instincts and drives but are not able to survive on their own in the wild, dogs, cats, or birds, whose strongest desire is to be free, must be confined to houses, yards, or cages for their own safety. [...]

Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and "set them free." What we want is for the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people to adopt animals (preferably two so that they can keep each other company when their human companions aren't home) from pounds or animal shelters—never from pet shops or breeders—thereby reducing suffering in the world.

See also, PETA fact sheeting on doing what's best for our companion animals:

Spay or neuter your dogs and cats.

Adopt from shelters—and don’t forget adult animals, who are often overlooked by people who want a puppy or a kitten.

If possible, adopt two animals. Animals need both human and animal companionship. Having an animal friend can help alleviate the boredom and loneliness of long hours spent waiting for you to come home.

Cats and dogs are safest and happiest living inside with their human families. For safety’s sake, they should only be allowed out into securely fenced areas or under close supervision.

Walk and play with your companion animals every day.

Make preparations for the care of your animal companion during difficult times, such as divorce or death.

Take strays to humanely run shelters.

Work within your community to legislate mandatory spaying and neutering. See PETA’s “Spaying and Neutering: A Solution for Suffering” factsheet for more information.

Speak up if someone is planning to breed an animal. Urge people who desire the companionship of animals to adopt from animal shelters.

If you witness neglect, talk to the animal’s guardian, send an anonymous letter, or contact the humane society. Be persistent! (See PETA’s “Chained Dog” leaflet for more information.)

PETA prefers the term "companion animal" over "pet", favors the usage of "companionship" over "ownership", favors "adoption" over "buying", favors animal shelters over breeding mills.

In a word, No. PETA does not object to keeping animals in principle.

 

[roger]

PETA is not anti-pet, despite what a scare quote by a single person that floats around the web might indicate.

Their position is that there should be no breeders, no purchase of animals, no capture of animals from the wild, and that every pet now in existence should be spayed or neutered. That means no pets in, oh, 20 years or so (excluding the longer living birds and such). Ingrid's 'scare quote' just elaborates on that position.

 

[Mister Earl]

She's the leader of a terrorist organization? Gonna have to say I don't care what she does with her corpse.

 

[Meed]

Define what you mean by 'good cause'.

Raising awareness about animal cruelty and advocating against it.

Isn't being "pretty much" vegan the same as being "A little bit pregnant"?

No, it's nothing like being pregnant.

 

[Cleon]

In a word, No. PETA does not object to keeping animals in principle.

According to the bit you quoted, they say:

we believe that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of "pet keeping"—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as "pets"—never existed.

So it seems to me they do object to keeping animals in principle, they've simply acknowledged the reality that pets aren't going anywhere, and that we have a responsibility to treat them well. Which, as PETA goes, is a fairly rational viewpoint IMO.

Of course, the real radical animal rights groups - the ones that talk about "animal slavery" and so on - have only a tenuous relationship with PETA. PETA is meant to be official and respectable, with the real radicalism being left to groups like the ALF.

 

[Meed]

Their position is that there should be no breeders, no purchase of animals, no capture of animals from the wild, and that every pet now in existence should be spayed or neutered. That means no pets in, oh, 20 years or so (excluding the longer living birds and such). Ingrid's 'scare quote' just elaborates on that position.

Dogs and cats are massively overpopulated at the moment and a huge number of them aren't pets, so your hypothetical is not realistic.

 

[roger]

Dogs and cats are massively overpopulated at the moment and a huge number of them aren't pets, so your hypothetical is not realistic.

It's not my hypothetical, it's PETA's. Or are you saying the ferals would continue to exist? Yes, they would. It's also what PETA wants.

from the same text, but what Dessi didn't quote:

This selfish desire to possess animals and receive love from them causes immeasurable suffering, .... They are restricted to human homes, where they must obey commands and can only eat, drink, and even urinate when humans allow them to...Dogs often have to drink water that has been sitting around for days, are hurried along on their walks, if they even get walked, and are yelled at to get off the furniture or be quiet.

And, finally, Igrid's own words:

“In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether.”
— Ingrid Newkirk, Newsday, Feb 1988

“Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation.”
— Ingrid Newkirk, Harper's, Aug 1988

“One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV.”
— Ingrid Newkirk, The Chicago Daily Herald, Mar 1990


“The bottom line is that people don't have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats... If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind.”
— Ingrid Newkirk, Animals, May 1993

“There is no hidden agenda. If anybody wonders about -- what’s this with all these reforms -- you can hear us clearly. Our goal is total animal liberation. [emphasis added]”
— Ingrid Newkirk, “Animal Rights 2002” convention, Jun 2002

“I don’t use the word 'pet.' I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer 'companion animal.' For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance.”
— Ingrid Newkirk, The Harper's Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223

 

[Cleon]

The first time I had someone tell me that my pets would be better off in the wild instead of being my "slaves," I laughed in their face; not out of rudeness, but because I genuinely thought they were joking with me.

You see, my pets at the time were rabbits...

 

[Dessi]

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.

I generally think this is a good place to start.

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.

The implication here is that the VP is a hypocrite because she used an animal product, or a product which was tested on animals in the past. I think the view is a bit naive, its only hypocritical if there was an available and accessible alternative.

Pretty much every ethical vegan adopts a principle that we should avoid products where its practical to do so, and don't let the unreachable goal of perfection get you down. Adopting a vegan diet, avoiding hunting, not being involved with dog fighting, avoiding certain forms of clothing when we can, and other things are easy and practical. Avoiding medicine, no so much.

Picture it this way: human slavery still exists. This situation that vegans may depend on animal-derived medicine is exactly analogous to the fact that you own stuff made by slaves -- the fact the world operates this way is not an argument favor of continued animal experimentation (or human slavery for that matter), but an argument precisely against it.

 

[jiggeryqua]

The first time I had someone tell me that my pets would be better off in the wild instead of being my "slaves," I laughed in their face; not out of rudeness, but because I genuinely thought they were joking with me.

You see, my pets at the time were rabbits...

...and some animals are 'fit' for the wild, some are even fittest, but rabbits? Yeah, right, dude, they're prey - see how their eyes are wide apart? That's because they know they deserve to be eaten. Their life ends in being eaten by something better than them (or in a snare made by something better than anything, or with myxomatosis of course, which is better than the pest deserves, trying to eat the crops of things that are better than them).

All animals, or no animals. I genuinely don't give a **** either way, but consistency is my hobgoblin.

 

[Lamuella]

She's the leader of a terrorist organization? Gonna have to say I don't care what she does with her corpse.

which terrorist organization is she the leader of?

 

[Mister Earl]

which terrorist organization is she the leader of?

PETA. I'm going off the definition of terrorism that I was taught in my time in the military. It was along the lines of, "A terrorist organization is one that uses terror as a mechanism to push political, ideological, or religious goals." Peta qualified as a terrorist organization when it sent out booklets like the infamous "Your Mommy kills animals!" to young children in order to terrorize them to further ideological goals. This is why I consider Peta a terrorist organization.

 

[sadhatter]

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.

Do you feel angry with a skunk when it chooses to eat another creatures eggs, or another smaller animal, instead of non living things?

If no, then your analogy fails at the moral level. If your going to say we are equal to animals, then animals are equal to us, and should be just as angry with omnivorous animals as you are folks who are eating meat, or trying to save human lives. After all, in both cases neither skunk nor person trying to cure aids needs to kill an animal, they just choose to, depending on the skunk it may be morally worse, as it could **gasp** just be killing something because of convenience, when non living food is also available.

Animals kill animals, we are animals , deal with that premise.

Personally i am of the opinion that if we can eat meat, we can use animals to further other similarly important goals. While i wouldn't be a fan of kitten skeet shooting, if it took a few kittens to cure aids, have at 'er. Every person has the point at which they will kill an animal, maybe it is when it is going to kill you, maybe it is when you would be starving to death and there is no choice, but strip away all the posturing, there is not a single person who can say they would never kill an animal. Besides someone who is suicidal that is.

 

[fuelair]

So she's not donating any of it to people who need organs, she's turning herself into a pathetic sideshow?

Scum. All of them are scum.

Plasticize the torso and head , invert, install proper plumbing - make it a public urinal for, say, central Calcutta. That way she is making a direct service object for part of the Indian public. Stick a "Thanks from PETA, I'm ghandi away but I still love you!" plaque next to the flush lever (which should be appropriately placed).

 

[fuelair]

So is she dying, or grandstanding?

Unfortunately, I would put big money on the latter. But I would happily be proven wrong.

 

[Meed]

The first time I had someone tell me that my pets would be better off in the wild instead of being my "slaves," I laughed in their face; not out of rudeness, but because I genuinely thought they were joking with me.

You see, my pets at the time were rabbits...

You're right, pet rabbits would not be likely to survive very long in the wild.

I just adopted these two.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

In general do non-human animals treat each other and humans as equals, or do they often exploit each other when the opportunity arises?