It is true that indirectly say that medicinal tests on animal saves lives. They kinda have to since their vice-president would die without insulin. The ludicrous part is that PETA believes that you can save more lives by using more money informing people about things people already know.
That may be a silly argument, but the valid point was that just because something may save lives doesn't necessarily make it justified. Personally, I am not against animal testing (aside from cosmetics and things like that) per se... I'd have to do more research to have an opinion.
Yes, but babies grow up to be able to understand they have rights. Animals will never understand they have rights, so the comparison is not really valid.
You might prefer the term animal welfare over animal rights, but PETA makes a clear distinction between the two. I am all for animal welfare, but animal rights when we can't even make sure that every person grows up with basic human rights that is just too far out for me.
Yeah, I disagree with PETA on that, even though I see it as somewhat of a semantic issue since they don't believe in "absolute" rights and they believe animals are okay to use "when justified" or something like that.
Though it is true that cows are most productive when they are impregnated every year. It is not needed, but is often practiced. What is also practiced on some farms is that the cows themselves decide when they want to be milked, by walking over to a milking robot and that works very well. Think about that the cow itself then wants to be milked. Sure it is trained to do this, but it still decide on its own when and generally it will want to be milked twice a day.
I'm not sure how common a procedure that is, but certainly some farms are better than others. The intensive ones are the worst.
PETA is not anti-pet, they call it companion animal, but it is the same thing as the rest of us call pets. Have you ever tried to walk a cat on a leash? That is about the worst experience ever, they are not like dogs that will more or less happily follow you.
By PETA's logic we should all never leave the house, because it is not only cats that are in danger of getting run over or get killed by a nuts neighbor out there.
Indoor cats have 2-5 times the lifespan of outdoor cats based on the first couple links I looked at on the subject. It seems to be the general opinion of animal professionals and not just PETA.
Though it is true that you can survived with out eating meat just fine as a human. If you don't eat any animal products you are in risk of nor getting enough vitamins and iron.
We are still evolved from hunters, as our anatomy is evidence off as I pointed out. Primates are also evolved from hunters, but a lot of primates will never eat anything but fruits and insects their whole life. I don't see many humans eating insects, we tend to stick to meat instead.
If you aren't careful you might be at risk, sure, but based on all the studies I've heard of vegetarians tend to be as healthy or healthier than meat eaters on average.
I don't see any reason why what we evolved from should inform our decisions. Our anatomy is what it is and is suited for what it's suited for. As it happens, it can handle both omnivorous and vegetarian diets just fine. I've even heard someone claim to be on an all-meat diet.
I don't want to save the cows over the humans.
I just think that PETA's statement is not thought true, because they make it sound like if we stop eating meat, then there will be no more cows that have to be feed. Besides since they are against killing bugs and other farmland crop killers as you read in my previous post, the production of food will not be nearly as high as it is today.
If we stop eating meat and dairy then there will eventually be no more cows to be fed, as we stop breeding them.
Well, producing synthetic replicas of leather is not better for the environment, at best it is the same impact, so their point is completely invalid.
You may or may not be right, I have no idea really.
Nature doesn't have intentions is correct in a way, but still some animals evolved to be hunters and therefor meat eats. No point in being a hunter if you don't eat the damn thing once you caught it.
But most humans aren't hunters.
Real problems are when you have no clean drinking water and no clean food supply. You have no safety because your life is worth nothing to the people in power. Have you ever seen a squatter village in India, Brazil, Thailand, the Philippines or any other poor country. If you have then you will know that even the worst off people in the states and Europe have a much better life.
No doubt, but that doesn't mean their problems aren't real. It just means they aren't as bad.
Of course I can understand why someone who is just struggling to get enough clean water and food to keep their family alive is probably not going to be too concerned with animal rights.
But are you saying that we in the west shouldn't care about anything that isn't as bad as the problems in the third world? That seems silly to me. It's like when people say caring about the environment is a luxury. It's true, but so what? "With great power comes great responsibility" as the Amazing Spiderman once said.
That we have a law about animal cruelty here in the Philippines shouldn't be taken as someone cares about animals here. There are a lot of laws in the
Philippines, but no one that follows them.
The government wrote the law and approved it, so I'm sure someone cared, unless they were doing it for no reason. There is also the animal welfare organization there that I linked to. Not the same as animal rights, sure, but not a huge leap away, and certainly indicative that there are people who care.
OK, my phrasing was not good. By not thinking about anything I mean, when you want a glass of water you turn on the fossett. When you need something to eat you go to one of the supermarkets around you and you can get anything you want. I think you get my point now. Survival in all western countries have become trivial and that is a good thing, but it also leaves us humans with a lot of time to think about other things, that before was trivial and now all of a sudden becomes wildly important, because we have nothing else to spend our time. In other words you are moving up in Maslow's hierarchy and as you get close to the top on of the things you use more and more time on is morality or rather your own personal version of morality and often that brings with it a need to teach that morality to others that does not share your morality.
So we spend more time on morality, instead of just trying to survive. I don't see anything wrong with that. I think it's a good thing. I also understand why those who are struggling to survive would be less concerned with issues like animal rights and environmentalism. I just don't think those of us who are better off should model our morality on the developing world.
