PETA President's Will

[roger]

I think I live with myself the same way that you live with yourself knowing that humans are included in unintentional car and train deaths every year. I think I live my life the same way that you do knowing that you own stuff made by slaves.

Okay, that's interesting, thanks for answering.

 

[cambion]

There's certainly something to be said for the Peter Singer viewpoint that we should judge the morality of killing something on its capacity to feel suffering. I also find it interesting that he stresses the "capacity to feel suffering" part rather than the intelligence of the creature, as I think that makes the argument much stronger.

However, since humans often find themselves in situations where survival means killing and eating an animal (and I'd hope no one here would object to the morality of that) it's also clear that this is a moral luxury, not a moral imperative.

I've bounced back and forth several times on the subject, and was consequently a vegetarian for quite a while -- and may be again some day. The condescending "I used to be like you" argument is ridiculous; there's no hard and fast answer here, since we have to subjectively set the initial parameters of what makes something moral before we can make a reasoned analysis about the morality of a given action. An (intelligent) animal rights supporter is probably going by a creature's ability to feel pain or think or live rather than its species, place in the food chain, or something else that might be argued to be an equally valid starting point.

TL;DR: this one's a toughie. But I hope we can all agree that PETA is bonkers.

 

[Dessi]

There's certainly something to be said for the Peter Singer viewpoint that we should judge the morality of killing something on its capacity to feel suffering. I also find it interesting that he stresses the "capacity to feel suffering" part rather than the intelligence of the creature, as I think that makes the argument much stronger.

However, since humans often find themselves in situations where survival means killing and eating an animal (and I'd hope no one here would object to the morality of that) it's also clear that this is a moral luxury, not a moral imperative.

I'm personally a huge fan of Singer. I would generally agree, veganism is a luxury, the arguments really only work in first-world countries where a vegan diet is more accessible.

The condescending "I used to be like you" argument is ridiculous

I retract my statement and subsequent bitchery.

 

[roger]

So, back to Ingrid, does anyone see PETA's attempts as successful? To give her her due, her will has us all talking about moral choices vis-a-vis animal rights. But I'll admit to a bias - the more they pull crazy stunts like this the less credence I give the whole movement. Yes, that's a personal failing, but there it is. Certainly I do not trust any source about the evils of animal husbandry anymore. Let me note that my cousin worked at a pig farm in the south, and the stories were not pleasant - I do not argue that deplorable conditions do not exist, because they do. I think PETA is doing themselves a disservice, as I will never trust anything they publish absent very significant outside verification.

 

[cambion]

So, back to Ingrid, does anyone see PETA's attempts as successful? To give her her due, her will has us all talking about moral choices vis-a-vis animal rights.

I can only go by my personal experience, but I found PETA's antics a big turn off from the whole movement before I ever got interested in the philosophy behind it. Instantly putting the people you're trying to convert on the defensive usually just gets you the finger. In fact, when I first became a vegetarian, the first thing out of a lot of people's mouths was "Ugh, you're not going to join PETA, are you?" That makes me think that the general public tends to equate the two in a negative way.

However, appeals to emotion, scare tactics, and over-the-top rhetoric seem to work out in politics, so maybe there's something to it here as well.

 

[Meed]

Cows may not have it as bad as pigs or chickens, but they are continually impregnated and have their children taken away from them. As you may know, the thing that tends to drive a female animal the most crazy is so much as threatening their children. Humans are not so different. They are also milked far far more than they would be naturally and all the milking and impregnation is taxing on the body. The infections and downed cows info was mentioned by someone else.

Not all cattle are allowed to roam around eating grass (less than one percent are pure grass fed) and most of those who do don't do it year-round. So the ones you'll see from the road may be happy enough for the time being, but it's far from the whole picture.

Male chicks are tossed alive into grinders or garbage bins. Females have their wings clipped and the front of their beaks (full of nerve endings) cut off without anesthesia so they don't kill each other in the madness of the insanely cramped conditions.

Pigs have their tails cut off without anesthesia and are also subjected to extremely cramped living conditions. Especially breedings sows, who are barely given enough room to move.

Here is some footage (you can decide for yourself if it's fair or whatever): http://ar.vegnews.org/vegan.html

I don't agree at all that farm animals live moderately pleasant lives. And I don't believe "they wouldn't be alive if it weren't for us" is a valid justification for inflicting unnecessary cruelty. This is not ethically similar to unintentionally killing a mouse at all. I differ from most of my fellow vegs in that I don't even have much of a problem with hunting and that's intentional killing.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I'm personally a huge fan of Singer.

<snip>

How much of your income do you give to charity or other "good" causes? Presumably you only keep enough to meet your needs and use the rest to alleviate the suffering of other people and animals.

I hope you don't fritter away money that could be used to save animals (or starving Africans) on hair care products for your spectacular mane.

 

[Meed]

I would generally agree, veganism is a luxury, the arguments really only work in first-world countries where a vegan diet is more accessible.

I don't agree. The most cost efficient and resource efficient foods are vegan. Grains, beans, oils, peanuts... Some poor Chinese families save up their money to buy one pig per year and that's their only meat. Farmed animal products are a luxury and animal feed is heavily subsidized.

 

[Cain]

Peta kills

Good one, Ivory but you owe me a new keyboard because I just sprayed my protein shake all over it, lolz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11oen In the past Peter Singer has spent money on eyeglasses, which makes him a HYPOCRITE. And Dessi can't be taken seriously because she puts ridiculous things on top of her head.

Cornsail:

I differ from most of my fellow vegs in that I don't even have much of a problem with hunting and that's intentional killing.

They keep the animal population in check. If not for the hunter, Bambi's mom would have starved to death. But that's what vegans want: the extinction of cows, children without medicine, and Bambi's mom... dying of starvation.

 

[Dessi]

So, back to Ingrid, does anyone see PETA's attempts as successful?

I don't like PETA's publicity, but I very much approve of undercover investigations which have lead to numerous instances of highly public condemnation of animal cruelty.

Off the top of my head, PETA's Iamscruelty.com is fairly well-known. After publishing this undercover video documenting abuse at the Sinclair Iams facility, an IAMS representative went out to the site and, surprisingly enough, found "problems with the air temperature and ventilation in the cage rooms, a lack of resting boards for the dogs and inadequate socialization for the animals", which lead IAMs to sever its contract with Sinclair.

The undercover investigator who shot the video provided information to impact press, indicating that dogs in the opening scene of that video were anesthetized to forcefeed them vegetable oil as part of a metabolic study, had large chunks of tissue cut out of their thighs as part of a muscle biopsy, kept in wire cages so their fecal matter can drop to the floor as part of a nutritional study. The linked article states:

Two of the dogs were later found dead in their cages. One of them had been suffering intensely for at least 11 days prior to her death. Her report read: "pyometra [infection of the uterus] possible, bloody discharge from vulva–foul odor present. Lethargic, not eating well, dehydrated."

Twenty-seven of the dogs subjected to the muscle biopsies were intentionally killed, even though Iams claimed that it would not conduct any experiment that resulted in the deaths or euthanasia of animals.

PETA initiated a lawsuit against IAMs for numerous breaches of its own animal cruelty policy, particularly the parts where IAMs claimed it would not euthanize animals or use lethal experimentation.

In a series of emails between PETA and IAMs, a number of researchers appear to confirm the complaint:

Diane Hirakawa
Senior Vice President of Research and Development, Iams

In one experiment, she intentionally put 24 young dogs into kidney failure, removed their right kidneys, conducted numerous painful invasive procedures on the dogs over a matter of months, and then killed the surviving dogs.

White JV (University of Georgia), Hirakawa DA (The Iams Company), et al. Effect of dietary protein on functional, morphologic, and histologic changes of the kidney during compensatory renal growth in dogs. Am J Vet Res 1991 Aug;52(8):1357-65.

Dan Carey
Director of Technical Services, Iams

He once removed 31 dogs’ kidneys to increase their risk of renal damage, keeping the surviving dogs alive for 48 months to study them, then killed and dissected the dogs. In a private meeting, he referred to dogs as "specimens."

Finco DR (University of Georgia), Carey D (The Iams Company), et al. Effects of aging and dietary protein intake on uninephrectomized geriatric dogs. Am J Vet Res 1994 Sep;55(9):1282-90.

Gregory Sunvold
Director of Clinical Research and Intellectual Properties, Iams

In an Iams experiment, he surgically forced 28 cats into kidney failure. The cats either died during the experiment or were killed by Sunvold to study the effects of protein on their kidneys.

Finco DR, Sunvold G, et al. Influence of protein and energy in cats with renal failure. In: Reinhart GA, Carey DP, eds. Recent Advances in Canine and Feline Nutrition, Volume II: 1998 Iams Nutrition Symposium Proceedings. Wilmington, Ohio: Orange Frazer Press; 1998. p. 413-24.

Gregory A. Reinhart
Vice President, Strategic Research and Communications Research and Development Division, Iams

He chemically damaged 18 male beagle puppies’ kidneys, fed them experimental diets, inserted tubes into their penises, and then killed them.

Grauer GF (Colorado State University), Reinhart GA (The Iams Company), et al. Effects of dietary n-3 fatty acid supplementation versus thromboxane synthetase inhibition on gentamicin-induced nephrotoxicosis in healthy male dogs. Am J Vet Res 1996 Jun;57(6):948-56.

A.J. Lepine
Research and Development Division, Iams

He removed the ovaries and uteruses of 56 dogs to study the effects of beta carotene on their “reproductive performance.”

Weng BC (Washington State University), Lepine AJ (The Iams Company), et al. Beta-carotene uptake and changes in ovarian steroids and uterine proteins during the estrous cycle in the canine. J Anim Sci 2000;78:1284-90.

I would consider the exposure of Iams cruelty a commendable success.

The Stop Huntingdon Life Sciences campaign brought international criticism to the facility, absolutely destroyed them financially:

The campaign against HLS, at its height, brought the company to the brink of collapse.[12] In 2000, SHAC obtained a list of HLS shareholders, including the names of beneficial owners: anonymous individuals and companies who bought shares in the name of a third party. These included the British Labour Party pension funds, Rover cars, and the London Borough of Camden. The list was passed to the Sunday Telegraph, and several investors divested themselves of their shares, including the Labour Party.[17] Two weeks later, an equity stake of 32 million shares was placed on the London Stock Exchange for one penny each and HLS quotes crashed. The Royal Bank of Scotland, closed HLS's bank account, and wrote off an £11.6 million loan in exchange for a payment of just £1 in order to distance itself from the company.[18] The British government arranged for the state-owned Bank of England to give them an account, because no other bank would do business with them. The British Banking Association said "Huntingdon Life Sciences are in a nightmare situation."[19] The company's share price, worth around £300 in the 1990s fell to £1.75 in January 2001, stabilizing at 3 pence by mid-2001.[18]

On December 21, 2000, HLS was dropped from the New York Stock Exchange because of its share collapse: its market capitalization had fallen below NYSE limits and the NYSE did not accept HLS's revised business plan.[20] On March 29, 2001, Huntingdon lost both of its market makers and its place on the main platform of the London Stock Exchange.

I don't really care so much for the "Holocaust on your Plate" or naked ladies holding "I'd rather be naked than wear fur". I very much approve of their undercover investigations, filing lawsuits against people engaged in animal cruelty.

See this list right here:

Fish Experiments Halted at Indiana High School
October 2011

USDA Cites University for Violations Following PETA Complaint

September 2011

Church & Dwight Pulls Coyote Fur Contest Item

September 2011

PETA convinced Church & Dwight to pull a parka made of real coyote fur that was being given away in its Arm & Hammer contest. READ MORE
Advertising Agency Erwin-Penland Signs PETA's Great Ape Humane Pledge
September 2011

Thanks to PETA's hard work and persistence, ad agency Erwin-Penland has signed the Great Ape Humane Pledge. READ MORE

CEO of Pest-Control Company Bans Drowning

September 2011

The California Department of Food and Agriculture Will Not Oppose PETA's Public Records Act Claim

August 2011

PETA is one step closer to stopping the board's false and misleading claims about the health and welfare of cows used by the California READ MORE
Red Tettemer + Partners Signs PETA's Great Ape Humane Pledge!

August 2011

Thanks to PETA's hard work and persistence, ad agency Red Tettemer + Partners has signed the Great Ape Humane Pledge. READ MORE
Preventative Installation Procedures Will Save Birds' Lives

August 2011

After receiving reports of trapped birds who were dying in residential gutters, PETA acted quickly to ensure that preventative installation measures would READ MORE

PETA Successfully Lobbies Congress to Put Limitations on EPA's Spending

August 2011

House Report language for 2012 tells the EPA that they must stop what they are doing and change their approach before they can start again. READ MORE

I think the highly emotive way PETA engages the public is completely offensive, it probably turns more people off than anything.

However, because PETA works with undercover investigators, works with congressmen to strengthen anti-cruelty laws, provides spay and neuter services, they've helped clean animals trapped in oil spills, etc. I can understand why some people find PETA less obnoxious than others.

 

[Lamuella]

How much of your income do you give to charity or other "good" causes? Presumably you only keep enough to meet your needs and use the rest to alleviate the suffering of other people and animals.

I hope you don't fritter away money that could be used to save animals (or starving Africans) on hair care products for your spectacular mane.

"Unless you live your life to an unrealistic standard that I just invented, you're a hypocrite for some reason". God, I hate this argument.

 

[roger]

"Unless you live your life to an unrealistic standard that I just invented, you're a hypocrite for some reason". God, I hate this argument.

Fortunately, the poster did not do that. It is Singer's argument, and the poster was merely asking if Dessi actually followed Singer's argument.

To elaborate, Dessi said she liked Singer, and Singer argues that we should give all of our income beyond what is needed for the merest survival to charity. Singer mostly walks his talk, btw.

http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/singermag1.html
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1972----.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/books/11garn.html

Google will give you hundreds of other examples.

 

[Lamuella]

The Stop Huntingdon Life Sciences campaign brought international criticism to the facility, absolutely destroyed them financially:

And yet, they still exist, are still profitable, and still do exceptionally valuable work.

 

[Lamuella]

Fortunately, the poster did not do that. It is Singer's argument, and the poster was merely asking if Dessi actually followed Singer's argument.

To elaborate, Dessi said she liked Singer, and Singer argues that we should give all of our income beyond what is needed for the merest survival to charity. Singer mostly walks his talk, btw.

http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/singermag1.html
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1972----.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/books/11garn.html

Google will give you hundreds of other examples.

If Singer's argument were that we should give all our income beyond what is needed for the merest survival to charity.... why would he list Bill Gates as one of his heroes in the New York Times article you link to?

As I daid: "Unless you live your life to an unrealistic standard that I just invented, you're a hypocrite for some reason".

 

[Meed]

They keep the animal population in check. If not for the hunter, Bambi's mom would have starved to death. But that's what vegans want: the extinction of cows, children without medicine, and Bambi's mom... dying of starvation.

I'm not pro hunting per se, I just think the animal farming industry is far far worse.

 

[Dessi]

How much of your income do you give to charity or other "good" causes? Presumably you only keep enough to meet your needs and use the rest to alleviate the suffering of other people and animals.

One of my all-time favorite articles is The Singer Solution to World Poverty. I think I've read pretty much everything he's ever written, so much <3 for that guy.

I make more than I can spend, but not really an extravagant amount of money. Last year, I declared about $1200 in charitable donations on my taxes, this year I think a few generous donations to the Sea Shepard Society, Special Olympics, PFLAG, open source projects I support, etc will put me over $2500.

I hope you don't fritter away money that could be used to save animals (or starving Africans) on hair care products for your spectacular mane.

<3

 

[roger]

If Singer's argument were that we should give all our income beyond what is needed for the merest survival to charity.... why would he list Bill Gates as one of his heroes in the New York Times article you link to?

As I daid: "Unless you live your life to an unrealistic standard that I just invented, you're a hypocrite for some reason".

Is that a trick question? Because Gates gave away his entire fortune to charity.

Ivor certainly used a bit of hyperbole in his description - are we now going to hold people that use exaggeration for effect to literal interpretations?

And, it wasn't much hyperbole: If you want an exact quote from Singer (which I linked to, as did Dessi):

[FONT=book antiqua, palatino, times new roman]So how does my philosophy break down in dollars and cents? An American household with an income of $50,000 spends around $30,000 annually on necessities, according to the Conference Board, a nonprofit economic research organization. Therefore, for a household bringing in $50,000 a year, donations to help the world's poor should be as close as possible to $20,000. The $30,000 required for necessities holds for higher incomes as well. So a household making $100,000 could cut a yearly check for $70,000. Again, the formula is simple: whatever money you're spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away. [/FONT]

Is hair care a "necessity"? I dunno. Seems like a fair question for Ivor to ask, given Singer's statement "whatever money you're spending on luxuries...should be given away".

edit: mea culpa, I was the one that used the hyperbole "mere survival". Obviously Singer does not say that any pleasure whatsoever must be denied you, but look at the quote above - $30K in 1999 dollars for an entire household is pretty lean. Your not living in a tent in the woods, but you aren't buying expensive hair care products either.

 

[roger]

Dessi, I am curious, since you obviously know more about Singer than most of us. The article we both linked to, The Singer Solution to World Poverty, has him stating that we should give everything that is not a necessity to charity. OTOH, google readily shows him recommending a charitable contribution more in line of 5-10%. Is the latter a concession to pragmatism (most won't give 30-90% of their income to charity, even if they should), or did he change his mind, or?

 

[Lamuella]

Is that a trick question? Because Gates gave away his entire fortune to charity.

is he currently living in subsistence level housing and making do with rice a roni for dinner?

Gates is going to give away his fortune, but his standard of living is not "the merest survival", is it?

Thus, as I said, Ivor's argument is "Unless you live your life to an unrealistic standard that I just invented, you're a hypocrite for some reason".

 

[roger]

is he currently living in subsistence level housing and making do with rice a roni for dinner?

Gates is going to give away his fortune, but his standard of living is not "the merest survival", is it?

Thus, as I said, Ivor's argument is "Unless you live your life to an unrealistic standard that I just invented, you're a hypocrite for some reason".

What on earth is your argument? Do you dispute that Singer says that we should give everything that is not a necessity to charity?

You'll have to talk to Singer on the fine points of Gates' ethics vis-a-vis charity. You seem to be enacting the hypocritical standard, not Singer, Ivor, or me. I'll merely note that Gates is a producer of wealth - the longer he keeps producing it, the larger the eventual gift to charity. He created the biggest charity on the face of the planet (to my knowledge, don't feel like google verifying that claim), convinced other billionaires to give away their fortunes. He has done more for the cause of charity than anyone else on the planet.

Plus, we are talking about Gates. You know, the guy that flew economy red eye flights well into billionaire status, pinched every penny, etc. The man is not profligate by any stretch of the imagination. He's not spending the wealth he has, it's invested.