Why vegans are simply better people

[Estellea]

Point taken. There is a credible link between PETA and Coronado, at least in nodding ideological support to some organizations and funding legal defense for specific individuals.

Pardon me, but PETA does a lot more than nod some ideological support to terrorist animal rights organisations.

That said, maybe I don't view ALF, ELF, or SHAC as even remotely comparable to child porn rings. I can understand why people would support those groups, understand their motivations, sympathize with their goals.

I'm well aware that ALF and ELF are recognized as domestic terror organizations. However, there's nothing comparable between these groups and say, the KKK, al-Qeada, Aryan Nation, Army of God, which is best put by the words of the FBI themselves:

I see, so because you support the objectives of your beloved organisations, their actions are condoned. Terrorism is terrorism; I am sympathetic to many of the objectives of the IRA but there is no way I can condone their past actions to achieve those objectives. There are many who think that your list of terrorist groups are justified as much as you believe your supported groups are. It's a slippery slope to justify terrorism that aligns with your philosophical dogma while condemning others.

I'm particularly sympathetic to Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, a campaign which absolutely destroyed the Huntingdon facility financially:

Let me get this straight, terror groups that save lives and kill no one? Terror groups which use undercover video and cooperate with law enforcement to penalize organizations being cruel to animals?

I guess you either aren't as familiar with or wilfully naive of SHAC's activities. This is another example of a group thwarting clear cut cases of long-standing animal cruelty using legal means but then turning to thuggery and terrorism. Killing people is the only endpoint that you use as a metric to gauge an animal rights group that you use? How would you like to be bludgeoned? Threatened constantly? Have your children threatened? Be the target of false criminal allegations or have your house torched? What charming people you think are so peachy.

I hope you understand why, for a terror organization, I'm a little underwhelmed.

Of course; it's moral relativism at its finest.

I'm very much familiar with how these groups operate. In addition to undercover videos, their actions consist of vandalism, property damage, they're known to cooperate with police, they have a tremendous respect for human and animal life. I don't find those behaviors especially objectionable. Except arson. I find arson uncontrollable, very unnerving.

You know, I don't think you really are that familiar with all that these groups do; at best you are very naive and at worst, you wilfully choose what to believe and disseminate.

Este

 

[citizenzen]

As long as they lend financial and other support to organisations and individuals conducting terrorism (even direct participation themselves), then the good and legal examples of what they do will always be tainted by the former in my opinion.

I hope you're not a republican.

 

[Cain]

I see, so because you support the objectives of your beloved organisations, their actions are condoned. Terrorism is terrorism;

So spoiled, white college-age civil rights activists broke the law in various sit-in protests, creepy old guys molester teh children, and "criminals are criminals." The ALF and ELF are explicit on the means to their ends, not sure what more can be said after it has been quoted and emphasized.

Perhaps you should do the unthinkable and define terrorism (be sure to carefully avoid the FBI's understanding of the term).

What it comes down to is this: "terror" groups want to defend animals harmed by property while our resident couch-warriors want to defend the property used to harm animals. Little wonder these "terrorists" are branded "crazy" -- it takes effort and thought to not only recognize oppression at one's own hands, but to risk one's neck doing something about it is... utterly alien. "What's to gain?" So we can spend hours pondering how Jefferson must have wrestled with a lifetime of slavery, really try to empathize with the guy, but I'll be goddamned if we don't snap at a PETA representative who made an intemperate remark in a Q&A.

 

[Kahalachan]

They are very fond of the concept that animals should be treated as companion animal, not pets (a word they view as derogatory). They really dislike the idea of buying a living breathing animal as if it were property, they prefer adopting instead. People should not think of themselves as animal owners, but caretakers and stewards. They avoid the inanimate pronoun it in favor of he or she. See pro-animal pronouns.

Does it really matter to the treatment of the animal what you call it?

Pet stores aren't free. The money you pay for a pet isn't solely for a pet. It's for the store, employee salary, etc. I've adopted at a shelter and had to pay $45 for a cat. I simply saw it as me giving the shelter money it needs to survive. I think all PETA should care about is whether or not the animals have good shelter and treatment at the store. Not the fact it's a store.

This is what I mean that PETA is more dogmatic than concerned with the welfare of animals. I don't care if someone calls their animal a slave as long as they treat it well. People could give their pets obscene and derogatory names. Nothing wrong here. When the animal is capable of understanding human language, then we should probably watch what we call it. Until then, no biggie if it's called a pet.


Edit:

This is exactly my point from the article linked

"How many of you have heard one of your parents ask the other if you've finished your homework yet? They might say, 'Did he finish his homework yet?' or 'How did she do on her homework?' Well, what would you think if they had said, 'Did IT finish ITS homework yet?' How would that make you feel?"

Yes a human is capable of feeling bad upon being called "it". I really don't think a cat cares if I call it the most obscene names in the world. In fact, that's often what I did for discipline and to relieve stress. The cat knew it was scratching something it shouldn't by the tone of my voice. It wasn't demoralized by the language and wouldn't know the difference between me using swear words or simply yelling a firm "no"

 

[Furcifer]

Thanks for the laugh, pro-animal pronouns. All those poor demoralized animals.

I suspect that PETA knows they sound like complete whackos with things like this, but also realize the people that believe this crap are likely to be passionate and willing to donate gobs of money in support of their mission.

 

[RandFan]

Pet stores aren't free. The money you pay for a pet isn't solely for a pet. It's for the store, employee salary, etc. I've adopted at a shelter and had to pay $45 for a cat. I simply saw it as me giving the shelter money it needs to survive.

Off topic but: The idea of selling animals that we have far too much of strikes me as insane. I don't think we should get rid of pet stores but I think the cost should be exorbitantly high. People who want pets should get them from shelters. JMO.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

I've never gone to a shelter or a store for cats, and I live with seven.

 

[Dessi]

..

 

[citizenzen]

I suspect that PETA knows they sound like complete whackos with things like this ...

You should know by now that in this world of diverse beliefs and opinions that there will always be some people who'll judge viewpoints as "whacko" while other people see them as valid.

It is your opinion that "they sound like complete whackos".

It is my opinion that they are just ahead of their time. So their message is lost on those who lag behind.

 

[RandFan]

I've never gone to a shelter or a store for cats, and I live with seven.

So long as your efforts don't promote the increase of population of cats then I'm happy.

 

[Dessi]

Does it really matter to the treatment of the animal what you call it?

Pet stores aren't free. The money you pay for a pet isn't solely for a pet. It's for the store, employee salary, etc. I've adopted at a shelter and had to pay $45 for a cat. I simply saw it as me giving the shelter money it needs to survive. I think all PETA should care about is whether or not the animals have good shelter and treatment at the store. Not the fact it's a store.

This is what I mean that PETA is more dogmatic than concerned with the welfare of animals. I don't care if someone calls their animal a slave as long as they treat it well. People could give their pets obscene and derogatory names. Nothing wrong here. When the animal is capable of understanding human language, then we should probably watch what we call it. Until then, no biggie if it's called a pet.

No argument from me. The whole "pet" vs "animal companion" thing is silly. I've never made the distinction in the way I talk about pet ownership, except in response to people who repeat the myth that PETA wants to take everyone's pets away.

 

[citizenzen]

I win.

Dessi, I understand you're trying to expose some people to the realities of animals testing. But I'm afraid that shocking people this way won't help ... any more than pictures of dead fetuses will make me pro-life.

Have patience. This struggle to get people to see animals in a new light will take longer than our brief lives. I believe that the best way to win converts is through calm and rational debate. Shocking them will likely just harden their stance.

 

[Dessi]

Have patience. This struggle to get people to see animals in a new light will take longer than our brief lives. I believe that the best way to win converts is through calm and rational debate. Shocking them will likely just harden their stance.

I'm just being ironic, countering one emotional argument with another.

In any case, I agree with you 100%. My normal style in these discussions is very academic. I was very put off by the OP's patronizing, total lack of class, and civility. This is really touchy subject for me, and I'm prone to being extremely venomous in response to people, so I've removed my post because its really not my style.

Since RandFan posted above, I will have to tip my hat off to him. I've exchanged a few dozen posts with him over the past 4 or 5 years on the subject, he's always been incredibly polite to me, no matter that I'm a fringe weirdo and he's on the polar opposite.

 

[Travis]

To be honest animal testing bothers me. I can see how it is necessary I just think there should be laws ensuring the animals don't suffer through it.

And I think that laws like that most people can get behind. But they are less likely to when you are calling them a murderer because they are eating a ham sandwich.

 

[RandFan]

ince RandFan posted above, I will have to tip my hat off to him. I've exchanged a few dozen posts with him over the past 4 or 5 years on the subject, he's always been incredibly polite to me, no matter that I'm a fringe weirdo and he's on the polar opposite.

I'm not sure how opposed we are. I believe that a future without killing animals for consumption is very likely. It bothers me some but I'm split on my views about that. What's most important for this discussion is that I believe that factory farms and much of animal husbandry today is a nightmare.

I think our difference lies mostly in whether killing and eating animals is per se immoral. I don't have a strong sense either way. Sometimes I wonder if people take me seriously as to my argument about animals getting something in return. I understand that. It's really not my purpose to convince anyone that is true. It's a rational argument to me and one I'm sincerely invested in. Thing is, I accept that this argument could be ad hoc rationalization. Then again, everything we say in support of our beliefs could very well be (Blank Slate, Pinker; Ramachandran A brief tour of human consciousness).

The important thing with me is that I'm not dogmatic on that single position. Unnecessary suffering of animals? Yeah, that's immoral. And I will concede that the best way to end the unnecessary suffering is for us all to become vegans. But that's another discussion.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

No argument from me. The whole "pet" vs "animal companion" thing is silly. I've never made the distinction in the way I talk about pet ownership, except in response to people who repeat the myth that PETA wants to take everyone's pets away.

I'm seeing a rise in "pet parents" and other weird terminologies around here, especially in pet stores. Personally the infantilisation kinda creeps me out, but then again we did breed dogs that require humans to wash the crap from between their face-folds...

Sorry, you guys can get back to patting yourselves on the back for totally pwning this troll who totally isn't reading this thread. Putting the E in JREF.

 

[Kahalachan]

Off topic but: The idea of selling animals that we have far too much of strikes me as insane. I don't think we should get rid of pet stores but I think the cost should be exorbitantly high. People who want pets should get them from shelters. JMO.

I thought the point of pet stores is to get a purebred animal.

So yeah people have too many animals, but I can't blame anyone if they want a AKC certified German Shepherd or something.

Shelters pick up mutts. But to breed an animal and have to care for specific breeds costs a lot more money than just letting 2 animals do it and giving away the puppies.

No argument from me. The whole "pet" vs "animal companion" thing is silly. I've never made the distinction in the way I talk about pet ownership, except in response to people who repeat the myth that PETA wants to take everyone's pets away.

Well it's good to address those myths. Even though it's not debunking woo I appreciate the same level of enlightenment.

But isn't PETAs stance going to eventually cause the extinction of almost all animals we domesticated?

Suppose we all suddenly stop eating meat. We let cows and pigs and sheep just go in the wild? If we have pet cows the overpopulation issue of pets is even made worse. Cows are too big as pets and make awesome food. If they have no natural defenses, aren't good for companionship, and are no longer used for food, these domesticated animals are pretty much doomed to extinction.

I am all for more ethical treatment of livestock. Free range animals and the like. I'd gladly cut down my meat intake for this result. But I can't see any pure benefit to domesticated animals if we purely went vegan. They've evolved too much to pretty much survive from our care and be our food.

 

[RandFan]

I thought the point of pet stores is to get a purebred animal.

Yes, a silly idea, but hey, it's not my place to tell idiots that they can't have a purebred animal. Just make it damn expensive and prohibitive to anyone who finds the idea so compelling.

So yeah people have too many animals, but I can't blame anyone if they want a AKC certified German Shepherd or something.

I don't blame them, I think their perceptions silly and does nothing to solve the overpopulation problem. People want pets. If we made owning purebreds difficult and expensive many people might actually find that a pet from the local shelter is actually a great idea.

Shelters pick up mutts. But to breed an animal and have to care for specific breeds costs a lot more money than just letting 2 animals do it and giving away the puppies.

You need to look into puppy mills. In any event, I seriously don't give a damn. IMO, any policy that leads to unnecessary suffering and does little to nothing to reduce suffering is irrational. I'm not calling for a prohibition (though I wouldn't cry if we had one). I'm saying we should make it far more difficult and far more expensive than it is now. Increase the health requirements, fees, regulations of breeding and provide higher fines and stiffer penalties for those who violate the regulations. The fees should cover inspectors to check breeders and cover the costs of closing down puppy mills. Anyone dealing with an unlicensed breeder would lose their license and face stiff penalties and I would carry that to store owners and property owners. I was an insurance inspector and I know how relatively easy it is to enforce compliance.

This is America. I suppose I can be persuaded to put up with the whims of perception as it relates to dogs and cats. That would be consistent with my primary argument. Just make it far more difficult and far more expensive. Far more. Did I say "far more"? Okay, well, I mean that.

 

[Dessi]

But isn't PETAs stance going to eventually cause the extinction of almost all animals we domesticated?

Dogs, cats, horses, rodents, and many other domesticated animals will be around and cared for as long as humans exist, whether we're vegan or not.

Suppose we all suddenly stop eating meat. We let cows and pigs and sheep just go in the wild? If we have pet cows the overpopulation issue of pets is even made worse. Cows are too big as pets and make awesome food. If they have no natural defenses, aren't good for companionship, and are no longer used for food, these domesticated animals are pretty much doomed to extinction.

See here:

I don't know too much about genetic strains used in animal agriculture, but I'm guessing most animals bred for slaughter do not exist in nature. Not breeding the animals would imply those particular strains come to an end, or go extinct, that much is true.

Bizarrely, people use that fact as a criticism of veganism. "Extinct" is an emotionally charged word, however I don't think the objections to hunting animals for extinction carry over to animal agriculture. How exactly do you harm something by not breeding it? Who is harmed, and in what tangible way? I'd say you do not harm anything by not breeding it, because nothing exists to harm in the first place. So not breeding food animals is wholly consistent with animal rights.

To be a little more blunt, perhaps some people might find pleasure in breeding cows for pets (whose the say they won't?), but its infinitely preferable to stop breeding food animals and allow certain strains to go extinct than continue breeding them for slaughter.

 

[jj]

To be a little more blunt, perhaps some people might find pleasure in breeding cows for pets (whose the say they won't?), but its infinitely preferable to stop breeding food animals and allow certain strains to go extinct than continue breeding them for slaughter.

Proof by assertion.