Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

PETA: What do you think?

Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2009 9:04:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I saw a debate today (http://www.Debate.org...) about the PETA. Charlie_Danger claims he's never lost a debate on the PETA, which leads me to think there are some pretty good arguments for it, but the first two "on topic" comments both stated extreme hate for the PETA - which leads me to think there are some pretty good arguments against it as well.

The only thing I have seen about the PETA is one video in my Psyschology class two years ago, which I actually didn't see because I heard it was going to be about "torturing animals" and I'm not a particular fan of watching things when they're described that way. I've heard its stated intent, but I know nothing about the facts. Other than its name. And that it's a pretty big organization.

I'd like to see all the arguments for and against the PETA in one place.

Go! :D
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2009 9:27:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
People who Eat and Torture Animals or People who Eat Tasty Animals? Either way, I'm a card-carrying member.

I also hate the real PETA. Animals shouldn't have rights, nevermind be at human level.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2009 10:46:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/23/2009 9:04:15 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
I saw a debate today (http://www.Debate.org...) about the PETA. Charlie_Danger claims he's never lost a debate on the PETA, which leads me to think there are some pretty good arguments for it, but the first two "on topic" comments both stated extreme hate for the PETA - which leads me to think there are some pretty good arguments against it as well.

The only thing I have seen about the PETA is one video in my Psyschology class two years ago, which I actually didn't see because I heard it was going to be about "torturing animals" and I'm not a particular fan of watching things when they're described that way. I've heard its stated intent, but I know nothing about the facts. Other than its name. And that it's a pretty big organization.

I'd like to see all the arguments for and against the PETA in one place.

Go! :D

I thought Bullshits! PETA show was pretty good.

Basically, I agree that you shouldn't mistreat animals. Bute PETA has gone over from that to crazy shot, and for some reason has ties to animal right terrorists. And that means that PETA are whacko, just like the leftist people who claim to be democrats but praise Castro.

What I think happened is that PETA once worked for something good: Ethical treatment of Animals. But that they won. But organisations, when they win, do not disappear or become content, now, they become more extreme. That just seems to be a natural thing to happen (and I think I understand why, but I'm not sure). It has evidently happened to PETA.
So prove me wrong, then.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2009 12:54:53 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I have not heard a lot about PETA, but I do recall them handing school children pamphlets lying about the health risks of milk.

So I currently have no time for them.

A lot of the animal rights activists really get on my nerves with their whiney hyprocrisey!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2009 3:16:49 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/23/2009 9:27:35 PM, Nags wrote:
People who Eat and Torture Animals or People who Eat Tasty Animals? Either way, I'm a card-carrying member.

I also hate the real PETA. Animals shouldn't have rights, nevermind be at human level.

Animals afford some rights, not human ones mind you.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2009 11:13:22 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/24/2009 3:16:49 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/23/2009 9:27:35 PM, Nags wrote:
People who Eat and Torture Animals or People who Eat Tasty Animals? Either way, I'm a card-carrying member.

I also hate the real PETA. Animals shouldn't have rights, nevermind be at human level.

Animals afford some rights, not human ones mind you.

They don't deserve rights, but I guess they can have the right to not be beaten or tortured, but that's about it.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2009 11:16:27 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/24/2009 11:13:22 AM, Nags wrote:
At 8/24/2009 3:16:49 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/23/2009 9:27:35 PM, Nags wrote:
People who Eat and Torture Animals or People who Eat Tasty Animals? Either way, I'm a card-carrying member.

I also hate the real PETA. Animals shouldn't have rights, nevermind be at human level.

Animals afford some rights, not human ones mind you.

They don't deserve rights, but I guess they can have the right to not be beaten or tortured, but that's about it.

Or have their race made extinct, which fringes on human rights.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Lifeisgood
Posts: 295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2009 4:10:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
PETA is just insane. That's the only way to describe it.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 1:51:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Most of the criticism seems to be by people who are against, literally, the ethical treatment of animals. Assuming animals have no rights, or a right only to freedom from wanton violence, PETA is indeed insane by virtue of its name alone. Similarly, abolitionists were insane, as were suffragettes. The self-sacrificial extension of our consideration to other classes is always insane until it is victorious, upon which the opposite viewpoint becomes insane.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 2:39:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/25/2009 1:51:18 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
Most of the criticism seems to be by people who are against, literally, the ethical treatment of animals.

Idiots are almost most vocal. I would however like to see an answer to the reasonable criticism, if you have such an answer.
So prove me wrong, then.
Lifeisgood
Posts: 295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 3:28:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/25/2009 1:51:18 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
Most of the criticism seems to be by people who are against, literally, the ethical treatment of animals. Assuming animals have no rights, or a right only to freedom from wanton violence, PETA is indeed insane by virtue of its name alone. Similarly, abolitionists were insane, as were suffragettes. The self-sacrificial extension of our consideration to other classes is always insane until it is victorious, upon which the opposite viewpoint becomes insane.

I believe you were addressing my post? It seems you have failed to understand my viewpoint.

I am not at all against the ethical treatment of animals. Not in the very slightest bit! It is totally wrong to abuse and kill lesser, weaker creatures for no reason.

PETA, however, takes it way too far, which is why I am against it. They place a higher value upon lesser, non-rational animals than human beings. Just read the link below and you'll see why I loathe PETA.

http://www.activistcash.com...

The world would be better without them. Someone should replace them.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 4:29:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
How could animals have any rights? By what standard must limitations in behavior toward them be respected, to what purpose?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 5:38:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/25/2009 3:28:47 PM, Lifeisgood wrote:
At 8/25/2009 1:51:18 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
Most of the criticism seems to be by people who are against, literally, the ethical treatment of animals. Assuming animals have no rights, or a right only to freedom from wanton violence, PETA is indeed insane by virtue of its name alone. Similarly, abolitionists were insane, as were suffragettes. The self-sacrificial extension of our consideration to other classes is always insane until it is victorious, upon which the opposite viewpoint becomes insane.

I believe you were addressing my post? It seems you have failed to understand my viewpoint.

It's indeed difficult to understand a "viewpoint" consisting of name-calling only, but I was referring previous viewpoints, ones that managed to be specific. That your post directly preceded mine is incidental. I was referring to core ideological opposition to PETA, which tends to accompany if not exist independently of any tactical opposition or anti-extremism.

I am not at all against the ethical treatment of animals. Not in the very slightest bit! It is totally wrong to abuse and kill lesser, weaker creatures for no reason.

PETA, however, takes it way too far, which is why I am against it. They place a higher value upon lesser, non-rational animals than human beings. Just read the link below and you'll see why I loathe PETA.

http://www.activistcash.com...

The world would be better without them. Someone should replace them.

The corporate lobbyists at Center for Consumer Freedom are harldly a credible source, especially since they fail to cite their own. Added to which, their arguments are incredibly weak:

"PETA is not an animal welfare organization", nor does it claim to be. As its name suggests, it's an animal welfare advocacy organization. Accusations of "euthanasia" are of course hypocritical coming from a CCF that supports thanasia generally. In fact, euthanasia is definitively good, suggesting it does qualify as animal welfare.

"PETA assualts common decency", the CCF says, by "comparing" the unethical treatment of animals to the unethical treatment of humans. In fact, a comparison of crimes of different magnitudes is no more an assualt on common decency than would be a comparison of crimes of different quantities: a double homocide and a triple homocide, for instance. PETA perceives an opposite equation (that of animals to the inanimate) and is merely correcting it, perhaps even going so far as to balance the issue.

PETA "pretends to offer objective nutritional advice", says the organization that got its start denying the health risks of second-hand smoke. PETA's nutritional assertions may be exaggerated, but it's not controversial within the nutritional community that Americans over-consume meat and dairy. Besides, there are more compelling self-interested reasons for humans to cut down on meat and dairy, including economic efficiency.

PETA "exploits sick people" abstractly, by pointing out the connection between over-consumption of animal products and morbidity.

PETA "propagandizes children" if it's like its adversaries in the meat and dairy industry (If cool2breal.com and "I may be small now, but..." weren't intended for children, I don't know what is.).

PETA "distorts religious teachings", which are presumably spot-on pre-distortion.

PETA "opposes life-saving medical research", with which the CCF evidently agrees, implying that the answer to "would you be opposed to experiments on your daughter if you knew it would save fifty million people?" should be "yes, but..."

PETA "openly supports violence and terrorist activity" by virtue of its "ties" (read: non-simultaneous overlapping membership) to ALF and ELF. Terrorism, of course, is sometimes counterproductive, as for 9/11, and sometimes effective, as for the Boston Tea Party. The CCF does not indicate which it prefers, but we can safely assume the former.

The point you're most likely referring to, though, is that PETA "devalues human life" by such statements as "we're the biggest blight on the face of the earth." I believe such is a misunderstanding similar to that of the statement "the U.S. is the biggest threat to world peace". One might, from that latter, infer that U.S. leaders or even the U.S. populous is intrinsically more threatening than, say, Saddam Hussein, but such would be inferring to much. To be a "big" threat to world peace, one must be big; likewise, to be a "big" blight, one must be big. Well, humans are to animals what the U.S. is to the international community. If the sharks were in control, they might be an even bigger blight than humans, but sharks aren't in control.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 5:53:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/25/2009 4:29:10 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
How could animals have any rights? By what standard must limitations in behavior toward them be respected, to what purpose?

Animals have the rights we ascribe to them. Their rights are an extension of our own.

Now, you may not agree with giving animals rights, but the majority of individuals want to give animals certain protections against blatant direct abuse, against the endangerment and possible extinction of certain species (this is more important due to the fact that the extinction of one species can lead to the proliferation of another, more negative species), etc.These ideas are put into law and are embodied by the organizations such as the SPCA or Humane Society.

But, the point is that animals have no specific rights in and of themselves. Humans give them rights.

Now, on the topic itself; I dislike PETA. It is an organization that is pointless, and probably does more harm than good. Their tactics are silly, their goals are unattainable and ultimately faulty, and I just have a general dislike ingrained in me for them. I would never, ever support such a group.

SPCA? Sure. Humane Society? Maybe. PETA? F*ck no.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 5:59:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/25/2009 5:53:41 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/25/2009 4:29:10 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
How could animals have any rights? By what standard must limitations in behavior toward them be respected, to what purpose?

Animals have the rights we ascribe to them. Their rights are an extension of our own.

Now, you may not agree with giving animals rights, but the majority of individuals want to give animals certain protections against blatant direct abuse, against the endangerment and possible extinction of certain species (this is more important due to the fact that the extinction of one species can lead to the proliferation of another, more negative species), etc.These ideas are put into law and are embodied by the organizations such as the SPCA or Humane Society.
I asked how and why, not who and with what political consequences. And I asked about rights, not gifts.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 6:13:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/25/2009 5:59:11 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I asked how and why, not who and with what political consequences. And I asked about rights, not gifts.

I answered how and why, and political consequences are intertwined with the issue.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 6:17:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/25/2009 6:13:59 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/25/2009 5:59:11 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I asked how and why, not who and with what political consequences. And I asked about rights, not gifts.

I answered how and why, and political consequences are intertwined with the issue.

I agree with Volkov. I don't think animals have rights by nature, like humans. Humans grant them rights. Torturing and beating a fully concious living, breathing thing is just wrong no matter what... unless the thing is a terrorist. (=
Lifeisgood
Posts: 295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 6:18:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/25/2009 5:53:41 PM, Volkov wrote:
But, the point is that animals have no specific rights in and of themselves. Humans give them rights.

Now, on the topic itself; I dislike PETA. It is an organization that is pointless, and probably does more harm than good. Their tactics are silly, their goals are unattainable and ultimately faulty, and I just have a general dislike ingrained in me for them. I would never, ever support such a group.

SPCA? Sure. Humane Society? Maybe. PETA? F*ck no.

Volkov, you have stolen my words from my mind itself. I'm gonna sue you*...

*This statement is a joke and is not in any way, shape or form to be taken as a statement of fact or belief.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 6:27:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/25/2009 6:13:59 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/25/2009 5:59:11 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I asked how and why, not who and with what political consequences. And I asked about rights, not gifts.

I answered how and why, and political consequences are intertwined with the issue.

No, an answer to how and why would be explaining the REASONS the majority believe such rights to be relevant, not telling me that a majority does :).

Torturing and beating a fully concious living, breathing thing is just wrong
Nothing is or can be 'just' wrong, wrongness has to be derived from the consequences that would accrue if the course of action were taken (a separate issue from the consequences of the fact that people think it to be wrong of course).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 6:33:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Torturing and beating a fully concious living, breathing thing is just wrong
Nothing is or can be 'just' wrong, wrongness has to be derived from the consequences that would accrue if the course of action were taken (a separate issue from the consequences of the fact that people think it to be wrong of course).

Then everything is right..?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 6:34:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/25/2009 6:33:20 PM, mongeese wrote:
The PETA is opposed to seeing-eye dogs...

What the heck?

It's enslavement of the dog you fool. lolz
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 6:38:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/25/2009 6:27:58 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/25/2009 6:13:59 PM, Volkov wrote:
Torturing and beating a fully concious living, breathing thing is just wrong
Nothing is or can be 'just' wrong, wrongness has to be derived from the consequences that would accrue if the course of action were taken (a separate issue from the consequences of the fact that people think it to be wrong of course).

You're like the child who repeatedly asks "why", half ignoring that the answers have long since exceeded explanation. The consequences of torturing and beating are obviously pain, for an animal as for a human victim. That should suffice, but then there is the moral degradation of the actor.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 6:53:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/25/2009 6:27:58 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
No, an answer to how and why would be explaining the REASONS the majority believe such rights to be relevant, not telling me that a majority does :).

Most people believe in animal rights because they feel empathy with these other life forms. Think of it sort of as a Golden Rule being applied to animals, instead of other humans. That is the main reasoning behind it, as far as I know.

But, there is also other reasons. Endangered species attain their rights because it is important to save their place in a lot of ecosystems, so governments and citizens give them rights as to protect them under law from poachers, urban sprawl, etc. Livestock is given rights as it is beneficial to production. Farmers must have certain standards of treatment and environmental conditions as to avoid infection, increase production, etc. This can be considered a proxy-right, actually, since they're given rights in order to benefit humans, but that is besides the point.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 6:54:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/25/2009 6:38:44 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 8/25/2009 6:27:58 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/25/2009 6:13:59 PM, Volkov wrote:
Torturing and beating a fully concious living, breathing thing is just wrong
Nothing is or can be 'just' wrong, wrongness has to be derived from the consequences that would accrue if the course of action were taken (a separate issue from the consequences of the fact that people think it to be wrong of course).

You're like the child who repeatedly asks "why", half ignoring that the answers have long since exceeded explanation. The consequences of torturing and beating are obviously pain, for an animal as for a human victim.
The response you knew was coming is "Why should anyone care about the animal's pain?"

That should suffice, but then there is the moral degradation of the actor.
"It's immoral to do it because it morally degrades you?" That's begging the question.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 6:56:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/25/2009 6:54:07 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The response you knew was coming is "Why should anyone care about the animal's pain?"

Why should anyone care about a human's pain? - Using your logic...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 7:04:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/25/2009 6:53:43 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/25/2009 6:27:58 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
No, an answer to how and why would be explaining the REASONS the majority believe such rights to be relevant, not telling me that a majority does :).

Most people believe in animal rights because they feel empathy with these other life forms.
Feel>belief?
That's a corrupt epistemology indeed :).

Think of it sort of as a Golden Rule being applied to animals, instead of other humans. That is the main reasoning behind it, as far as I know.
A rule is not a reasoning. A rule is a conclusion. Translating one moral rule (golden rule, in which "others" includes all members of the animal kingdom) to another (don't torture animals) doesn't tell us why the rule is valid unless you are talking to someone who already upholds the first species.


But, there is also other reasons. Endangered species attain their rights because it is important to save their place in a lot of ecosystems, so governments and citizens give them rights as to protect them under law from poachers, urban sprawl, etc.
Which brings us to the question of what rights ecosystems have and why.

Livestock is given rights as it is beneficial to production.
Livestock are killed in the most economical manner possible if one's goal is production, not respected in certain exclusive domains of action (rights). Any advocacy of "livestock rights" REDUCES the potential productivity of livestock. When you say "No, my right," that serves the function of telling someone it's time for someone to back the f*** off. What do cows produce more of by making their owners back the f*** off from doing whatever activities it is that makes SPCA's empathy tingle?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 7:07:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/25/2009 6:56:48 PM, Nags wrote:
At 8/25/2009 6:54:07 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The response you knew was coming is "Why should anyone care about the animal's pain?"

Why should anyone care about a human's pain? - Using your logic...

Because if you cause pain to a human, guess what. They have a brain, and will likely stop using that brain to make things to trade with you, and start using it to find a way to make you stop giving them pain, which likely means starting with giving you pain, and if that doesn't work to make you stop, killing you. And those who don't want to be next for whatever you wanted to give the first one pain for are likely to help.

This, of course, presumes that you want to live-- but it takes effort to live, and the fact that you're talking to me demonstrates that you've taken that effort, made that choice, so your wanting to live is a presumption I can safely make.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 7:09:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
A reasoning brain, I should amend.

A cow has a brain too, I suppose, but as far as I can tell it doesn't have sufficient ability to reason out a coherent strategy of retaliation, nor was it using that brain to produce useful things to trade with you in the first place :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 7:26:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/25/2009 7:04:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Which brings us to the question of what rights ecosystems have and why.

It isn't necessarily so much that ecosystems have rights, as it is another proxy-right in order to benefit humans. A health ecosystem provides a healthy world for all of us to enjoy and produce from.

Livestock are killed in the most economical manner possible if one's goal is production, not respected in certain exclusive domains of action (rights). Any advocacy of "livestock rights" REDUCES the potential productivity of livestock. When you say "No, my right," that serves the function of telling someone it's time for someone to back the f*** off. What do cows produce more of by making their owners back the f*** off from doing whatever activities it is that makes SPCA's empathy tingle?

http://www.scientistlive.com...

Happy cows produce more milk, apparently. Free-range livestock has consistently proven to be better for the livestock, and whatever is produced from the livestock.

Plus, as I said, it is also beneficial to us that the livestock, in this case cows, are placed in protected environmental conditions. Proper sanitary conditions help reduce infections that could possibly taint our meat supply.

That is bad, just so you know.