PETA’s logical fallacy?!
PETA’s logical fallacy?
Question to PETA supporters. If it is wrong to harm animals and using disruptive means to accomplish this goal is acceptable, why not attempt to stop lions from eating gazelles or dolphins from eating fish? If it is natural for creatures to harm other creatures, is man not a creature and therefore absolved from any wrong doing? Please explain.
Answers:
PETA consists of a bunch of whack jobs. I live in CO where they were contacted for support/assistance to the 15k starving cattle due to a blizzard in SE CO & the representative couldn't be bothered. A local radio station called them about the situation & the person answering their questions was a total idiot from New York who had no clue. I guess cattle aren't worth saving but other animals are? Huge contradiction!!
Stop confusing us with logic!!!!!!!
Good point, and it's much more ethical to stun an animal before killing it than to chase it over the african countryside.
u have a point. I'm not for PETA, but some humans torture animals for fun. I mean nature kills animals just like humans in some circumstances such as food. But torture isn't right. I mean either way, the animal is gonna suffer (a predator can kill it or a human can eat it)
PETA themselves are ''killers'' by their own definition!
GO TO:
http://www.peta-sucks.com/petakillsanima...
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/...
http://www.epou.org/peta_kills_animals.h...
Yeah, but that would be LOGICAL. Their leader-lady uses percription drugs that contain some ingredients derived from animals. But accroding to her it's okay because she's helping save the animals. Haha. F'n hypocrites.
Well we're omnivores and we are smart enough to know how to eat veg properly.
"If it is wrong to harm animals and using disruptive means to accomplish this goal is acceptable"
Using disruptive means (as in violent means) to accomplish absolute animal liberation is against PETA's agenda. You're probably thinking about ALF and SHAC, but they're in a completely different ballpark when it comes to ethics than PETA.
"why not attempt to stop lions from eating gazelles or dolphins from eating fish?"
There are dozens of reasons. I'll start from the most basic one and that is that lions and dolphins are naturally carnivorous animals. They can not survive without meat. Humans on the other hand are omnivorous and can survive without meat products. Humans can easily get all of the nutrients that they need from a vegetarian, meat-free diet, whereas lions and dolphins can not.
"If it is natural for creatures to harm other creatures, is man not a creature and therefore absolved from any wrong doing?"
Like what I said above; humans can survive without meat. Other carnivorous animals can not. You should also know that lions and dolphins do not mass produce gazelles and fish, whereas humans do mass produce chickens and cows. A large part of PETA's campaign is focused more on animal cruelty rather than just animal eating. You see, humans mass produce chickens, cows and any other farmed animal that they eat. They drug them, give them hormones, put them into small cages, and kill them in the most inhumane ways possible. All of this is nothing like a lion hunting a gazelle. When a lion hunts a gazelle, he's actually helping the food chain by getting rid of the weak gazelle. When a human debeaks a chicken without pain killers, puts in a 1X2 cage, gives it steroids, feathers it alive, and then sells it, he's doing no such thing. If humans were to hunt down the animals they ate like lions and dolphins do, then you'd have an valid question. But right now you're comparing apples to oranges.
Several other things that happen in the natural world:
cannibalism
eating your young
rape
incest
If we do these things, are we absolved from any wrong doing because they are "natural"?
Similarly, following your argument, man is a creature, creatures harm other creatures, therefore it is okay for people to harm other people.
It seems to me that the logical fallacy is not PETA's (of whom I am not a supporter, btw), it is yours.
The problem PeTA has is the conduct of man. Animals in nature are driven by instinct while man has the ability to reason. Therefore, we are naturally evolved to a higher level and capable of making the decision not to torture animal for no reason. Now some would say that animals were put on the earth for our consumption. I would say they are absolutely correct. BUT, animals were not put on this earth to be confined, abused, mutilated and tortured. On the African plains, animals live in a wide open space where they interact with their families (assuming that is the pack tradition), raise their young, grow old with their families and sometimes, if nature determines, become the meal for a higher hierarchy. The animals people eat are shot full of hormones to increase growth in a reduced amount of time and pumped full of antibiotics to prevent the overrun of disease from overcrowded breeding pens and lots. Their living areas rarely give them enough room to stand up or even turn all the way around. You rarely see happy cow like on TV. Not only do humans eat approximately 4 times more meat than necessary for good nutrition, but they ingest all of the hormones and antibiotics stored in the animals’ muscles and fat stores.
It is the way that we treat animals before we kill them
Also we DON'T NEED meat anymore, there are so many alternitives
That sounds so retarded people are not supposed to eat animals so why the **** would you try to stop animals from eating other animals that is there instinct humans don't see a fish and dive in a try to catch it in there mouth we were not made to eat animals or eat what they produce. Ugh. It is nature for animals to eat other animals due to their instinct and there need for it. Humans do not need to slughter animals and take what they produce. And humans are not supposed to consume milk or eggs or anything of that matter. Think of it this way, who on earth said lets squeeze this and drink what comes out. What the ****. I don't really understand peoples logic on this. I am a strong supporter of veganism and PETA. So ugh.
I am not a huge animal rights activist, but for me, it is not man killing animals that bothers me. It is the manner in which they are killed and how they are housed while they are still alive. It is not using animals I am bothered by, it is torturing them.
www.meat.org (very biased, but I have been able to back up what they say. They say it with the intent to scare, and present it in the worst manner possible, but like I said, I found other research to support it)
Some people say humans don't need to eat meat. I disagree, I think meat is an excellent source of nutrition and there wouldn't be enough food to go round were we to not eat it now (taking factors like nutrients into account). That's good enough reason for me to eat it.
As to those who say it's the way we harm animals before killing them, and how it's better for the animals being killed in the wild, that's ridiculous.
I quote "In the wild, a sheep would have to look for food, compete for it, jockey for position in the herd, look out for predators, guard its offspring, and it one day would die because of some accident, perhaps a fall, some nasty illness, or it would become weak and have its throat ripped out by the local predators. By striking contrast, the life of a farmed sheep is rather different. A farmed sheep has complete protection from predators; all the food of exactly its favourite kind at its feet all day every day, for which it does not have to compete; no competition for mates; no need to guard offspring; free health care; free haircuts; it is very unlikely to die in childbirth, and unlikely to die a nasty death. True, half a ewe’s offspring are taken away and killed. However, in the wild, a ewe would lose most of its offspring anyway, and in nastier circumstances. By the standards of the natural wild, a sheep’s life is about as cushy as a life could possibly be."
This is true, animals in the wild invariably die violent deaths. the closest an animal will get to dying of old age is being picked by a predator because it it old and therefore an easier to target. Hyenas even start to eat prey like gazells before they even die. Farmed animals invariably lead happier, healthier, less stressful lives than those in the wild. They may not be excellent lives but, probably with the exception of battery farmed chickens, etc, their lives aren't as bad as naturally.
What PETA and other Animal Rights Organizations
do are their own business. I"m a Vegan and an activists
not because Ingrid Newkirk says I should be but
because I don't believe man should impose his
mechanical will ( and I stress mechanical)
on other forms of life. I have my own beliefs beyond
anything she may or may not have said.
Animals preying on animals is part of natural selection
and the circle of life. Man can't compete with other
animals without mechanized means. This is the
difference for me. Our bloodlust originated from
being too uninformed to plan out a well-balanced
plant based diet. It continues because of our laziness
and obsession with certain taste-buds.
The food chain maintains the balance of nature.
Man has mistakenly placed himself in the
carnivore class and in doing so has disturbed
nature and the environment. Fish aren't even
organic anymore. All because the genetically
engineered salmon, trout, mollusk, etc. have
mated with the ones in the water after escaping
from their farms of origin.
The cows are artificially inseminated. The hens
are forced to molt. They are pumped full of steroids
and antibiotics, all so they be killed assembly line
style.
Do lions prey this way? Do dolphins?
Why waste your time looking for logic from a terrorist group? Remember, these are extremist who do not represent anything but their own radical views. They want to force naturally carnivores like dogs and cats to eat wildly unnatural diets that have to be chemically altered just to prevent death. That's animal cruelty as well, but their hands are far from clean in that matter.
7 Things You Didn't Know About PETA
1) PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk has described her group’s overall goal as “total animal liberation.” This means no meat, no milk, no zoos, no circuses, no wool, no leather, no hunting, no fishing, and no pets (not even seeing-eye dogs). PETA is also against all medical research that requires the use of animals.
2) Despite its constant moralizing about the “unethical” treatment of animals by restaurant owners, grocers, farmers, scientists, anglers, and countless other Americans, PETA has killed over 14,400 dogs and cats at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. During 2005, PETA put to death over 90 percent of the animals it collected from members of the public.
3) PETA has given tens of thousands of dollars to convicted arsonists and other violent criminals. This includes a 2001 donation of $1,500 to the North American Earth Liberation Front (ELF), an FBI-certified “domestic terrorist” group responsible for dozens of firebombs and death threats. During the 1990s, PETA paid $70,200 to an Animal Liberation Front (ALF) activist convicted of burning down a Michigan State University research laboratory. In his sentencing recommendation, a federal prosecutor implicated PETA president Ingrid Newkirk in that crime. And PETA vegetarian campaign coordinator Bruce Friedrich told an animal rights convention in 2001 that “blowing stuff up and smashing windows” is “a great way to bring about animal liberation.”
4) PETA activists regularly target children as young as six years old with anti-meat and anti-milk propaganda, often waiting outside their schools to intercept them as they walk to and from class-without notifying parents. One piece of kid-targeted PETA literature tells small children: “Your Mommy Kills Animals!” PETA brags that its messages reach over 2 million children every year, including thousands reached by e-mail without the permission of their parents. One PETA vice president told the Fox News Channel’s audience: “Our campaigns are always geared towards children, and they always will be.”
5) PETA has used a related organization, the PETA Foundation, to fund the misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a deceptive animal rights group that promotes itself as an unbiased source of medical and nutritional information. PCRM's president also serves as president of the PETA Foundation.
6) PETA runs campaigns seemingly calculated to offend religious believers. One entire PETA website is devoted to the claim-despite ample evidence to the contrary-that Jesus Christ was a vegetarian. PETA holds protests at houses of worship, even suing one church that tried to protect its members from Sunday-morning harassment. Its billboards taunt Christians with the message that hogs “died for their sins.” PETA insists, contrary to centuries of rabbinical teaching, that the Jewish ritual of kosher slaughter shouldn't be allowed. And its infamous “Holocaust on Your Plate” campaign crassly compares the Jewish victims of Nazi genocide with farm animals.
7) PETA has repeatedly attacked research foundations like the March of Dimes, the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, and the American Cancer Society, because they support animal-based research that might uncover cures for birth defects and life-threatening diseases. PETA president Ingrid Newkirk has said that “even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we would be against it.”