Penn & Teller vs. PETA
While I only caught the last part of the episode, it seems that the second season of Penn & Teller’s Bullshit! started with a bang :
One of the unwritten rules for winning an argument against an inflammatory, irrational opponent is to calmly adhere to a loftier set of rhetorical standards. Penn and Teller showily throw this notion out the window. On tonight’s episode, they compare PETA co-founder and president Ingrid Newkirk to Adolf Hitler, cutting from shots of Newkirk at an animal rights conference to stock footage of Hitler’s youth. “Cheap shot?” says Penn in the narration. “Well, you bet it is. It’s beneath us, but we’re not the first to use the Nazi analogy.” The show then takes PETA to task for its 2003 “Holocaust on Your Plate” action campaign, which juxtaposed images from concentration camps with images of industrial meat processing. I’m not sure which makes me more uncomfortable, PETA’s manipulation of a genocide or Penn and Teller’s breezy character assassination, but the moment made me pine for a less sensational approach. I’m more accustomed to professional doubting Thomases like Skeptic Society director Michael Shermer, whose wonderful book Why People Believe Weird Things manages to debunk all kinds of bad thinking?including that of Holocaust deniers?without resorting to calling anyone a Nazi.But as P&T: B! wore on, I began to appreciate the show’s street-fighting style. Measured rationality is a powerful tool, but sometimes a well-placed “you’ve got to be fucking kidding me!” works even better. When Newkirk compares animals in the Western world to slaves, Penn can barely contain his incredulity. After noting that there are still millions of human slaves in the world today and invoking the legacy of slavery in our country, he says, “Do you really want to equate that worldwide shame … to chickens?”
If Penn & Teller: Bullshit! were all bluster, it wouldn’t be as effective or as entertaining. Thankfully, the show is surprisingly good at balancing its histrionics with facts. Using PETA’s public tax records, tonight’s show links the organization to Rodney Coronado, who admitted to firebombing a Michigan State University lab that used animals in its research. Penn and Teller also do a nice number on a PETA vice president whose treatments for Type II diabetes were developed using research on dogs.
For a group that specializes in hyperbole and emotional appeals, it’s funny to see PETA getting a taste of their own medicine. PETA’s tactics are pretty much the same as those of the pro-life movement : emotional appeals and propaganda while eschewing a sensible middle ground. For a good example of this, see this part of PETA’s animal testing FAQ :
?If we didn’t use animals, wouldn’t we have to test new drugs on people??The choice isn’t between animals and people. There is no guarantee that drugs are safe?even if they have been tested on animals?because the physiological differences between humans and other animals prevent the results of animal tests from being accurately extrapolated to humans. Some drugs that have been approved through animal tests can cause serious and unexpected side effects for humans. A 2002 report in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that in the last 25 years, more than 50 FDA-approved drugs had to be taken off the market or relabeled because they caused ?adverse reactions.?
Based on that, you’d almost think that the AMA was against testing on animals, huh? Well, not quite :
H-460.979 Use of Animals in Research.
(1) Researchers should include in their protocols a commitment to ethical principles that promote high standards of care and humane treatment of all animals used in research. Further, they should provide animal review committees with sufficient information so that effective review can occur. For their part, institutions should strengthen their animal review committees to provide effective review of all research protocols involving animals.(2) The appropriate and humane use of animals in biomedical research should not be unduly restricted. Local and national efforts to inform the public about the importance of the use of animals in research should be supported.
(3) The development of suitable alternatives to the use of animals in research should be encouraged among investigators and supported by government and private organizations. The selection of alternatives ultimately must reside with the research investigator.
H-460.953 Biomedical Research and Animal Activism.
Our AMA: (1) Our AMA opposes the addition of new United States Department of Agriculture regulatory requirements concerning the care, treatment and reporting of laboratory rats, mice and birds;
(2) supports working with Congress to establish a uniform method to assure a prompt, unbiased review by scientific peers of federally funded research projects before grant or contract monies can be withheld from any investigator or institution;
(3) supports working through Congress to oppose legislation which inappropriately restricts the choice of scientific animal models used in research;
H-460.985 Support for Use of Animals in Teaching, Product Safety Testing and Research.
The AMA: (1) reaffirms its unequivocal endorsement for the humane care, treatment and proper stewardship of animals in research as reflected in current laws and regulations;
(2) supports continued work with other organizations to develop programs to educate physicians and the public regarding the benefits of the use of animals in research;
(3) supports continued efforts to defend and promote the use of animals in meaningful research, product safety testing, and teaching programs;
(4) condemns illegal acts by the so-called “animal liberationists”;
(5) supports the policy of obtaining animals for medical research and education from animal control units, and the studying of ways to ensure that the animals used are indeed unwanted and abandoned;
(6) affirms its commitment to the pursuit of alternative models for research where appropriate; and
(7) encourages physician involvement in public policy issues concerned with the use of animals in research in order to insure the optimum environment for the creation of new knowledge to better diagnose, treat, and prevent disease.
Even if PETA didn’t mean to imply that the AMA is on their side, I’m gonna stick with the experts on this one. The fact is, animal testing is an unfortunate, but necessary evil. Most people are have made their peace with this, but for PETA, even the death of one animal for the greater good is too much :
?Would you support an experiment that would sacrifice 10 animals to save 10,000 people??No. Look at it another way: Suppose that the only way to save 10,000 people was to experiment on one mentally challenged orphan. If saving people is the goal, wouldn’t that be worth it? Most people would agree that it would be wrong to sacrifice one human for the ?greater good? of others because it would violate that individual’s rights, but when it comes to sacrificing animals, the assumption is that human beings have rights and animals do not. Yet there is no logical reason to deny animals the same rights that protect individual humans from being sacrificed for the common good.
By the way, humans are sacrificed for the “greater good” every day. It’s called “war”, and sometimes it’s necessary.
Now I don’t want to create the impression that I’m against animal rights organizations. I’m just against the views and tactics of PETA, which as far as I’m concerned are extremist in nature. If animal rights was one of my pet (no pun intended) issues, I’d support an organization like The Humane Society. For the record, here’s their view on animal testing :
Safety tests are conducted on a wide range of chemicals and products, including drugs, vaccines, cosmetics, household cleaners, pesticides, foodstuffs, and packing materials. The safety testing of chemicals and consumer products probably accounts for only about 10% to 20% of the use of animals in laboratories, or approximately two to four million animals in the United States. Yet the use of animals in safety testing figures prominently in the animal research controversy. It raises issues such as the ethics and humaneness of deliberately poisoning animals, the propriety of harming animals for the sake of marketing a new cosmetic or household product, the applicability of animal data to humans, and the possibility of sparing millions of animals by developing alternatives to a handful of widely used procedures.The Animals in Research section is committed to promoting alternatives to the use of animals in product testing as well as in biomedical research and education. Alternatives are scientific methods that accomplish one or more of the “Three Rs”: They replace the use of animals in a scientific procedure, they reduce the number of animals used in a procedure, and/or they refine a procedure so the animals experience less pain, suffering, or discomfort.
That’s the “sensible middle ground” I was talking about.
18 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
To: Greg Re: Being my bestest friend ever
This is, hands down, the finest post about PETA I have ever read in my life. It sums up how I have felt about that organization since the first time I heard about them. As someone who supports the humane…
Trackback by August J. Pollak - xoverboard.com — April 2, 2004 @ 4:08 pm
The greatest and most sincere addressing of PETA’s problems I’ve ever read. I’ve been toeing the “there are real animal groups out there that deserve positive attention” line for years. Thanks.
Comment by August J. Pollak — April 2, 2004 @ 4:10 pm
“By the way, humans are sacrificed for the “greater good” every day. It’s called “war”, and sometimes it’s necessary.”
So, the 597 soldiers that have died in Iraq so far are justified by the “greater good.” That’s the argument Bush is using.
I am a PeTA supporter, even though I don’t agree with all of their views and tactics. I do agree with the most important one- that animals deserve the same rights and treatment as humans.
I’ve been a big fan of Penn & Teller’s Bullshit since it began last year. But this episode hits too close to home. I understand that it’s more entertaining to make animal rights activists look like buffoons, but I think they take it a bit far with this episode. Even if they did only focus on the “unethical” practices of PeTA, they should have presented at least one of the redeeming qualities of the group. But whatever, that’s not how they do it on that show. They edit and cut everything to make it funny and entertaining. That’s the format of the show, and I found it very entertaining when they gave the same treatment to creationists.
But here’s where I draw the line- PENN AND TELLER FED KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN TO CHICKENS!!!! Sure, you may think it’s funny- ” HA HA chickens is so stoopid that they’ll eat chickens! HAHAHA!” You know what else might be funny? Cooking a cadaver and feeding it to a retarded kid- now that’s entertainment!
What this show boils down to is Us vs. Them- not P&T vs PeTA- but HUMANS vs. ANIMALS. They, like most people, have drawn the line and they are unwilling to even think that animals could be equal. Penn said “I would personally kill EVERY chimp on earth with my bare hands if it would save ONE homeless junkie from dying of AIDS.”
It’s been a little over 50 yrs since we considered African-Americans to be so inferior to Whites that it was fine to conduct medical experiments on them. Maybe if Penn & Teller had a show back then we could’ve heard Penn say “I would personally kill every Nigger on earth with my bare hands if it would save ONE White man from getting syphilis.”
You know why I support groups like PeTA and the Humane Society? The same reason I would’ve been fighting for the Civil Rights of Black people in the 60s. The same reason I support Civil Rights for Gays & Lesbians. In hopes that some day people will be enlightened enough to not be so arrogant in thinking that we are any different from the animals. The only difference is that we’re stupid enough to destroy the earth and everyone and every thing on it. I know most people just don’t agree that animals should be treated equally, but there was a time, not too long ago, that we thought African Americans were monkeys.
Comment by tom — April 2, 2004 @ 4:35 pm
The problem with PETA, besides some of those you mentioned, is their financial shenanigans.
They use up a lot of money on questionable tactics.
They’re considered kind of wasteful and demagogic by the animal rights’ people i know.
There’s an amusing documentary available from PBS Home Video called The Natural History of the Chicken. The best segments are a short documentary on a chicken that lived on for months after its head was cut off. It eventually choked on its own mucus, which, I appeal to Tom on this, is not funny. Point is, the video is worth seeing. Once.
Comment by JoeW — April 2, 2004 @ 5:05 pm
A chickens only “right” is to be in my belly. I would love to see that PBS home video sounds like a great watch.
Comment by andrew R — April 2, 2004 @ 8:58 pm
Maybe you missed the part where they talked about how PETA killed animals themselves as the only way of saving them. I am all for animal rights and everything but PETA wants complete animal liberation meaning animals roam free with people. Please someone explain how that is not the most ridiculous idea ever.
Comment by zach — April 2, 2004 @ 9:09 pm
I definitely don’t want to get on the bad side of someone who will be drawing a caricature of me on my band’s next album sleeve!
However, I think the attempt to label all animals as equals with humans is a little simplistic.
First of all, let’s remember that the distinction “animal” is a scientific one, and a fuzzy distinction at that. At one point kingdom animalia included all life that was not in the plant or fungus kingdom–in short, single-celled life, bacteria, slime molds, and all kinds of other low life forms. Then science added the protists and monerans, suddenly shifting what was considered an animal. Now science is constantly looking at better ways of classifying life for study–so the definition of “animal” is up for grabs on the edges and is not set in stone. If a sponge is called “animal” by science, is it immoral then to pluck it from the ocean and put it in my bathroom? And if science determines that a sponge is NOT an animal tomorrow, can I then go kill and use lots of sponges and suddenly it’s okay?
Also, the classification of “animal” incorporates lifeforms as menacing as poisonous spiders, as harmful as tapeworms, as devastating as locusts–in short, a host of critters whose existence is dedicated to harm and who inevitably come in contact with humans. If animals are equal to humans, then who dies, the man with the tapeworm, or the tapeworm to save the man? If animals are equal to humans, should we maximize the life of both by pumping the human as full of food as possible so the tapeworm can live off of him?
I think that the realistic answer is that at least some animal life is less sacred than human, that at least some lower form of animal are less equal, or at least more expendable. I think we can admit that a tapeworm is more expendable than a puppy or even a chicken (if not, then be VERY careful walking barefoot). That being the case, it’s not a clear-cut line of animal=good, non=animal expendable, but rather a line drawn somewhere within kingdom animalia of animals that deserve to live and be treated kindly by humans, and animals that may not be so deserving.
Or maybe even having a line is too simplistic an idea–some animals (dogs, dolphins, monkeys) are so clearly near-human, emotional, responsive, and feeling, that to kill them is cruel. There’s perhaps a scale rather than a line stretching from total non-human animals (hydras, sponges) to somewhat emotional animals with their own personalities (say, chickens) to very vibrant and humanistic animals, the kind that can crudely learn language, who dote on each other, who clearly love and can be taught.
Now it seems that dictating where everyone should draw his line, or set up his scale, is a bit unfair, and somewhat arbitrary. It is not clear from nature what life forms we should embrace and care for, and which ones we should eat or destroy, and it makes sense to me that people would draw different conclusions.
Personally, I would include animal cruelty as pertaining to those animals who have a sense of self, who are self-aware, know they exist, have a clear set of emotions and are receptive to communications and interactions on more than just an instinctive level. I can feel vindicated at the cockroach I just squashed to death, but horrified at a dog killed in the road, and I don’t feel it makes me a hypocrite.
Now, perhaps Tom may be squeamish about killing a lower form of animal, but I’m not, and I don’t believe that one of us should have the ability to dictate to the other where we draw the line in what is clearly not a cut-and-dry situation.
Onward to another comment Tom made, I don’t think the analogy between slavery and animals holds up. I think we can all agree here that ALL human races have the same capacity of thought, of love, of creation and working together. But clearly some animals are less intelligent, less capable of love, less capable of working in harmony with each other and/or us, etc. I don’t think that automatically means they deserve to die or have detergent injected into them, but it DOES indicate that potentially there should be a second set of standards for them-not necessarily a standard that allows wanton cruelty but a standard that perhaps takes less safeguards, and makes for more allowances (e.g. medical testing) than would be appropriate for humans.
Comment by dAnimal — April 2, 2004 @ 9:12 pm
I won’t get into what I think about Penn and Teller or PETA, but I think that our thinking about life-forms needs re-thinking. A case in point: The Story of the Stud Cockroach. I was visiting an artist friend in his garret apartment and we were sitting on the floor drinking a glass of wine and eating cheese and crackers when this most fantastic creature appeared. It was about three inches long with antenna twice that length. It approached, paused, and seemed to bow to me just out of arm’s reach and near a crumb of cheese that had fallen to the floor. As it waved it’s antenna at me I ask my host what this creature with the graceful demeanor and beautifully sculptured carapace was. He said that it was his pet Japanese Temple Beetle and that it was asking me if it could have the crumb of cheese. I politely told it to go ahead and help itself. Whereupon, it advanced and took the crumb in it’s mandibles, moved backward — again seeming to bow to me — turn and scurried back to the shadows to consume it’s feast. In amazement I asked where he had gotten such a magnificent creature. He laugh at his joke and explained that it was the local ’stud cockroach’. What? I asked, puzzled. He explained that cockroaches can be cannibalistic and if the population is left to mature that one would become dominant and eat all of the smaller ones, controlling the whole apartment as it’s territory. And, he said, that this one had been in the apartment when he had moved in and was savvy enough to understand his movements and not make itself a pest or get in the way. In contrast to this in my apartment, where we made efforts to kill the cockroaches, we were plagued by literally thousands of half inch long roaches with no sense of manners or decorum. Since then I have not looked at even such a lowly life-form as those with six legs in quite the same way that I had in the past. H’m… just something to think about.
Comment by Robert — April 2, 2004 @ 10:28 pm
dan, you make some good points- too which i agree somewhat.
first let me point out that i was not comparing animals to slavery- i was comparing medical animal experimentation to the Tuskegee experiments on the effects of syphillis in African Americans. i agree the slavery analogy that PeTA uses is a vague concpet and there are too many differences. although one could make the argument that circus animals are slaves- but anyway….
here’s my biggest problem with the treatment of animals- it has to do with the corporate influence on the use of animals in/as products. this is an entirelly different argument and one that Penn & Teller didn’t get into.
On that episode of Bullshit, they even interviewd Ted Nugent, a man who i admire. why do i admire him? because he is a responsible meat-eater. he’s a conservationist. he raises his own animals, kills only what he can use, and he uses all of it. much the same way as the american indians. i have absolutely no problem with that. unfortunately Penn & Teller didn’t get into that, they just showed clips of Ted saying “MEAT IS FOOD.” and “PeTA activists have threatened to kill my children.”
i hate that mis-guided PeTA activists would think to inflict harm on anyone because of their ideology. i do’nt agree with that. i also do’nt agree with PeTA’s efforts at protesting animal shelters and other organizations that are doing their best with a difficult situation. and i, too, amd shocked at the hypocricy that P&T pointed out.
the biggest problem i have with the rest of the meat-eaters in the world, is the irresponsible practices of the food corporations. i feel the same way about non-meat food production and corporate farming. that’s the biggest problem that i wish groups like PeTA would concentrate more of their time on. corporate irresponsibility is rampant on all fronts- whether it’s Halliburton, Enron, Nike, Tyson, KFC, Dairy companies, Meat-packing plants, or whatever- they are all doing reckless things to destroy us and our world.
there is a natural order, but humans have forced themselves to the top of the food chain in a horribly irresponsible and destructive way. the massive ammounts of arrogant humans on earth have caused animals to be viewed as products, not our fellow earthly creatures that deserve our respect and equal treatment.
so, when i say they deserve the same treatment as humans, that’s what i mean. the american indians (or native americans if you prefer that term) had it right. Ted Nugent has it right (althoguh i think he values himself more than any other human or animal on earth- but that’s a different issue altogether).
Comment by tom — April 3, 2004 @ 11:25 am
I think the lives of our soldiers lost during WW2 were justified by the greater good of stopping the Holocaust.
Well, there are a number of flaws with the argument. The biggest one being that the Tuskegee experiments were secretive, cruel, and unnecessary (since there was already a treatment for syphilis). If you’re trying to use this comparison to imply that all medical testing on animals is as sick and pointless then you’re obviously ignoring all the positive developments that have been made to society thanks to animal testing.
Secondly, the implication that the support of animal testing and the barbaric racism of 100+ years ago are morally equivalent is just sick. In the future, if you wanna get people to take your side of the argument, you’ll have more luck if you don’t insinuate that they’re racist.
Finally, the majority of Americans (myself included) don’t think that animal life is equal to human life. That doesn’t mean we’re all inhuman monsters who kill animals for sport (unlike your buddy Ted Nugent). There’s a reasonable middle ground here, which is why groups like The Humane Society deserve more support and recognition that those like PETA.
The modern meat industry arguably uses as much (if not more) of the animal than the Native Americans ever did. Why do you think there are animal byproducts in just about everything?
What are the elements of this natural order that humans are overlooking? We’re destroying the environment and all, but it’s not human beings are the only animals guilty of over-breeding and using up all their resources.
There’s something that strikes me odd about praising “the natural order” while decrying human beings for acting like carnivores. Is everything that humans do automatically “unnatural”? Go watch Animal Planet for a few minutes and tell me if you see any other carnivores treating their victims like “equals”.
Using animals for food, testing, whatever while trying to minimize animal suffering is a complicated issue. Everyone has a comfort level here whether you’re someone who will kill anything that moves or someone who refuses to eat honey or watch movies because they’re shot with gelatin film. I know we’re never going to agree on this, but demonizong people who disagree with you (as PETA often does) is just immature.
Comment by greg — April 3, 2004 @ 4:02 pm
I would love for animals to have the same rights as people. Maybe then, my fat and lazy cats would get a job and pay for the litter box they use.
I loved the P&T show. Serves you dumbasses right. I love the jackass who compared himself to Jesus. How about this – if you put a tiger in a room with a human and an apple – and if the tiger eats the apple and signs a petition to have the human set free – I’ll buy you a new car.
Taste of your own medicine.
Comment by Chad — April 4, 2004 @ 4:37 am
Chow down on my cock, Chad, you retard. 100% beef with a creamy center.
Comment by Vlad — April 4, 2004 @ 1:45 pm
As a vegetarian and believer in avoiding unnecessary cruelty to animals, I am a firm believer in animal testing of pharmaceuticals etc… So that companies don’t release products into the environment which might be harmful to animals.
Comment by Titler — April 4, 2004 @ 4:47 pm
Penn said “I would personally kill EVERY chimp on earth with my bare hands if it would save ONE homeless junkie from dying of AIDS.”
Well, if Penn were a junkie, I’d hand him an infected needle and piss on him when he nods off. What a fucking moron. Yeah, why not make all the animals on Earth suffer for our stupidity?
There’s no need for animal testing. Wake the fuck up, people. This is America! The biggest collection of dumb fucks in the Western world! You know goddamn well that there are plenty of people who would volunteer to be experimented on. Make it a reality TV show, with the survivor(s) getting some cash or a really cool appliance, and they’d be lining up for a chance to be on TV. Yes, I’m serious. Are there any shortages of worthless bastards trying to get on Jerry Springer’s show? How about the useless dorks from Jackass? They’re already determined to kill themselves just for pure entertainment; why not do it for a good cause? Then you don’t have the problem of trying to extrapolate research results from one species to another.
Comment by S8N — April 5, 2004 @ 6:37 am
“Secondly, the implication that the support of animal testing and the barbaric racism of 100+ years ago are morally equivalent is just sick. In the future, if you wanna get people to take your side of the argument, you’ll have more luck if you don’t insinuate that they’re racist.”
i never called anyone a racist. but i do think that specism is sick and i will continue to make the comparison because i believe that there are too many similarities.
“The biggest one being that the Tuskegee experiments were secretive, cruel, and unnecessary (since there was already a treatment for syphilis).”
how about the continuation of medical experiments on animals after all the conclusive data is collected? i.e. tobacco companies stil testing cigarettes on mice and dogs? do we really need more information about whether smoking causes cancer? i’m not comparing all vivisection to the Tuskegee experiments. but there’s plenty of secretive, cruel and unnecesary animal testing going on- and that’s what i’m against.
perhaps i was generalizing too much before, and lashing out because i felt i had been attacked by P&T and by the Talent Show. it’s easy to paint an organization like PeTA as horrible by only exposing the extremist, fanatical aspects. i happen to believe the organization also has a good side, but it’s a side that no one bothers to talk about.
let me try to explain my position a little better.
i’m not PeTA. i’m not their spokesperson. i do support them (and other groups like the humane society) because there are many other good things they do- like promoting healthy diets and promoting research on how diet can effect things like cancer. i’m not for the total liberation of all animals (i realize that’s impossible), and getting rid of all medical testing (i realize that a lot of good has come out of it). i do’nt think eating meat is immoral- it’s a personal choice. personally i know it’s unhealthy and unnecessary and irresponsible.
if you are someone who is outraged by nike using child-labor in sweatshops to make shoes, then i think you are also someone who should be outraged by dairy cows being kept pregnant, year round, strapped to a machine that shortens their lifespan by 60%, while their offspring are locked in boxes to keep them from developing muscles before they’re slaughtered as veal.
i’m not trying to make everyone become a vegan PeTA supporter. but it doesn’t take much effort to become a more conscientious consumer by avoiding products, food, and companies that exploit animals, people, and the environment while also disregarding the adverse effects their products can have on you, the consumer (if you do’nt care about the animals being killed, then read fast food nation to learn about the horrible working conditions for the people involved and the corrupt, exploitive nature of the industry). people remain too willfully ignorant of what they do to the earth, animals, and their own bodies. groups like PeTA, even though they use extreme tactics that unfortunately alienate rather than persuede, are trying to make people aware of these things. if you eat meat, and you’re a conscientious person, then you should try to eat free-range, organic meat and cook it in the most healthy way you can.
you can have your cake and eat it too- all it takes is a little label-reading and research.
for example- the monterey bay aquarium has a great program for promoting responsible fishing and seafood eating. if you love seafood, but care about the environment, then you should follow their guidelines. you can find that here:
http://montereybayaquarium.com/cr/seafoodwatch.asp
if you love eating other animals, then you should do some research and find out how to do that responsibly.
i won’t be returning to this argument because it’s making me too angry and making me hate everyone. so this i smy last post on the subject.
Comment by tom — April 5, 2004 @ 11:07 am
This is probably my biggest problem with PETA. The lumping together of all animal testing as if it were the same issue. I think the animal testing of cigarettes is repulsive (a fact that I’ve pointed out to vegetarians who smoke plenty of times). But there’s a world of difference between testing cigarettes and testing cancer medicines. PETA doesn’t see that distinction.
I can’t speak for Penn & Teller, but I’ve been lashing out at PETA, not you.
My whole point is that reasonable activist groups don’t have those “extremist, fanatical aspects”.
The reason I’m against PETA is the same reason I’m against those fire-bombing assholes at the Earth Liberation Front. They’re lunatics whose hearts might be in the right place, but their actions do more harm as good.
It doesn’t make sense to me to support a group like the ELF when there are more moderate groups like the Sierra Club who don’t act like a bunch of angsty teenagers who don’t realize that their actions have consequences.
Likewise, I don’t think a group like PETA deserves the support that should be going to more reasonable groups like the Humane Society.
The tactics of PETA perpetuate the stereotype that animal rights supporters are all shrill fanatics who want to throw buckets of red paint on anyone who wears leather. Just compare the homepages of PETA and the Humane Society and you’ll see what I mean. Near the top of the HS’s homepage you’ll see this :
And in a similar position on PETA’s homepage is this :
Comment by greg — April 5, 2004 @ 12:34 pm
I think all of our arguments here come to one basic difference: Do you believe in a distinction between whether or not a human is an animal, and whether or not the “intelligence” of a mammal, let alone an “animal” gives it an equal experience with a conscience or soul. In it’s essence it seems as it is evolutionary vs. creationist view. The creationist meaning a human is above the animals and has a free will to choose between cruel and unusual actions versus evolution’s natural selection and survival of the fittest principles.
Comment by Sven — April 12, 2004 @ 12:28 pm
I am REALLY sick of people comparing animals to retarded people. My cousin is autistic, and I don’t appreciate people comparing him to a chicken, cow, pig, or any other animal. He has far more mental capacity.
You want to make your point, then GROW UP and quit resorting to insulting people who are different than you.
Comment by Rose — October 16, 2004 @ 8:30 pm