Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

PETA is illogical

JrRepublican
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 8:28:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I hold that radical animal rights groups such as PETA have no basis in reality. The concept of 'humane' treatment is really based on the subconscious realization that humans are superior. Have you ever heard of dolphins getting together to promote "dolphinish" treatment of other species, or sharks becoming vegetarians! No, it is because humans have unique intelligence and emotion that they feel a social responsibility towards other species. Let's examine the two basic world-views. Theistic religion tends to believe that God has created man in a special situation with the responsibility to use the resources. Atheistic Darwinists really have no reason to care, because if humans are nothing more that highly developed animals, we have no reason to behave differently from the rest of the natural world -- eat or be eaten, natural selection, etc. So theists can use the resources, and atheists have no reason to care. Thus there is no basic philosophical or logical reason for radical animal rights groups like PETA
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 8:41:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'll top you one.

PETA aids and assists most of the yearly domestic terrorism our country experiences. The USDA has classified them as a terrorist thread.

Ingrid Newkirk has been implicated directly in several bombings of research labs, her co-founder was in jail for animal rights related arson.

They are the only spokespeople for ALF.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 8:56:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'll defend PETA since nobody else is going to.

Let's set some contentions here:

1) There is some element of "wrongness" in animal abuse. Is it OK to, say, torture cats and dogs?

2) There are some examples, most notably CAFOs, where animals are not being treated well. Harboring one million animals in one building seems pretty cold and harsh to me.

So if we can agree that animals should enjoy at least some standard of treatment, and we can agree that we have some pretty questionable practices, then we should at least be able to come to the conclusion that we should at least be doing something "for the animals."

I'm not interested in defending specific actions by PETA, but I'll defend the logic behind having an outfit of that type.
Rob
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 12:38:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 8:56:51 PM, Lasagna wrote:
I'll defend PETA since nobody else is going to.

Let's set some contentions here:

1) There is some element of "wrongness" in animal abuse. Is it OK to, say, torture cats and dogs?

2) There are some examples, most notably CAFOs, where animals are not being treated well. Harboring one million animals in one building seems pretty cold and harsh to me.

So if we can agree that animals should enjoy at least some standard of treatment, and we can agree that we have some pretty questionable practices, then we should at least be able to come to the conclusion that we should at least be doing something "for the animals."

I'm not interested in defending specific actions by PETA, but I'll defend the logic behind having an outfit of that type.

To say PETA does not use animals as a front for other agendas is naive.

I am not sure what is worse for the animals to be honest.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 12:45:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 12:38:57 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/23/2011 8:56:51 PM, Lasagna wrote:
I'll defend PETA since nobody else is going to.

Let's set some contentions here:

1) There is some element of "wrongness" in animal abuse. Is it OK to, say, torture cats and dogs?

2) There are some examples, most notably CAFOs, where animals are not being treated well. Harboring one million animals in one building seems pretty cold and harsh to me.

So if we can agree that animals should enjoy at least some standard of treatment, and we can agree that we have some pretty questionable practices, then we should at least be able to come to the conclusion that we should at least be doing something "for the animals."

I'm not interested in defending specific actions by PETA, but I'll defend the logic behind having an outfit of that type.

To say PETA does not use animals as a front for other agendas is naive.

I am not sure what is worse for the animals to be honest.

Ahh the paranoid. Everyone's out to get you, PETA, The government, society,....and to believe otherwise is naive.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 12:52:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Is it OK to, say, torture cats and dogs?

http://philosophistry.com...
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.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 1:15:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'd say that the purpose of government should be to help those who don't have a voice for themselves. I.e. animals, children, mentally disabled, etc.

Having said that, PETA can get very radical with their support with animals.....
Which is precisely why they are awesome. A terrorist threat? Why the hell not? Our society is so damn boring that we need bullsh!t like this. The world simply couldn't function without it. Do you want to live in a society where everyone is well adjusted and there's no fringe characters? Fvck that. I certainly don't.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 1:18:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 1:15:09 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I'd say that the purpose of government should be to help those who don't have a voice for themselves. I.e. animals, children, mentally disabled, etc.

Having said that, PETA can get very radical with their support with animals.....
Which is precisely why they are awesome. A terrorist threat? Why the hell not? Our society is so damn boring that we need bullsh!t like this. The world simply couldn't function without it. Do you want to live in a society where everyone is well adjusted and there's no fringe characters? Fvck that. I certainly don't.

you're.....you're kidding.....right?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 1:20:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 1:18:48 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/24/2011 1:15:09 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I'd say that the purpose of government should be to help those who don't have a voice for themselves. I.e. animals, children, mentally disabled, etc.

Having said that, PETA can get very radical with their support with animals.....
Which is precisely why they are awesome. A terrorist threat? Why the hell not? Our society is so damn boring that we need bullsh!t like this. The world simply couldn't function without it. Do you want to live in a society where everyone is well adjusted and there's no fringe characters? Fvck that. I certainly don't.

you're.....you're kidding.....right?

Woe, to be new to the forums again....
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 3:02:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
PETA supports terrorism and even, hypocrtically, kills animals.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 8:05:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 8:28:19 PM, JrRepublican wrote:
I hold that radical animal rights groups such as PETA have no basis in reality. The concept of 'humane' treatment is really based on the subconscious realization that humans are superior. Have you ever heard of dolphins getting together to promote "dolphinish" treatment of other species, or sharks becoming vegetarians! No, it is because humans have unique intelligence and emotion that they feel a social responsibility towards other species. Let's examine the two basic world-views. Theistic religion tends to believe that God has created man in a special situation with the responsibility to use the resources. Atheistic Darwinists really have no reason to care, because if humans are nothing more that highly developed animals, we have no reason to behave differently from the rest of the natural world -- eat or be eaten, natural selection, etc. So theists can use the resources, and atheists have no reason to care. Thus there is no basic philosophical or logical reason for radical animal rights groups like PETA

Here is the major flaw with the argument. Not everyone falls into these two categories as you have described them.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 8:48:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 3:02:53 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:


PETA supports terrorism and even, hypocrtically, kills animals.

I was going to post this!
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 12:21:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 12:45:04 AM, 000ike wrote:

Ahh the paranoid. Everyone's out to get you, PETA, The government, society,....and to believe otherwise is naive.

You would be paranoid too if you were an animal like me.
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 7:39:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 8:28:19 PM, JrRepublican wrote:
I hold that radical animal rights groups such as PETA have no basis in reality. The concept of 'humane' treatment is really based on the subconscious realization that humans are superior. Have you ever heard of dolphins getting together to promote "dolphinish" treatment of other species, or sharks becoming vegetarians! No, it is because humans have unique intelligence and emotion that they feel a social responsibility towards other species. Let's examine the two basic world-views. Theistic religion tends to believe that God has created man in a special situation with the responsibility to use the resources. Atheistic Darwinists really have no reason to care, because if humans are nothing more that highly developed animals, we have no reason to behave differently from the rest of the natural world -- eat or be eaten, natural selection, etc. So theists can use the resources, and atheists have no reason to care. Thus there is no basic philosophical or logical reason for radical animal rights groups like PETA

There you have it. They are all insane. And trust me, I fully agree with almost everything you say. You wouldn't believe some of the ARA bull I've read on other forum and debate sites. The only things I disagree with are the natural selection and eat or be eaten parts. In general, I don't think humans are at risk of being eaten. As for natural selection, it no longer exists in the majority of the human race. With medical technology where it is, many people are living who should be dying. This keeps the weak genes in our gene pool and, therefor, has an effect opposite of natural selection. Rather than the weak dying and the species growing stronger as a whole, the weak are living, procreating, and weakening the species as a whole.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 7:48:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 8:56:51 PM, Lasagna wrote:
I'll defend PETA since nobody else is going to.

Let's set some contentions here:

1) There is some element of "wrongness" in animal abuse. Is it OK to, say, torture cats and dogs?

2) There are some examples, most notably CAFOs, where animals are not being treated well. Harboring one million animals in one building seems pretty cold and harsh to me.

So if we can agree that animals should enjoy at least some standard of treatment, and we can agree that we have some pretty questionable practices, then we should at least be able to come to the conclusion that we should at least be doing something "for the animals."

I'm not interested in defending specific actions by PETA, but I'll defend the logic behind having an outfit of that type.

There are laws protecting certain rights of animals. Leave it to the government rather than forming a terrorist organization. Plus, and correct me if I'm wrong, I believe Peta is also against having pets. They also appose hunting and fishing. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd personally prefer the swift painless death to floating to the top of a pond, or having animals circle around me and/or tear me to pieces as I die.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 11:05:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 7:39:44 AM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
The only things I disagree with are the natural selection and eat or be eaten parts. In general, I don't think humans are at risk of being eaten. As for natural selection, it no longer exists in the majority of the human race. With medical technology where it is, many people are living who should be dying. This keeps the weak genes in our gene pool and, therefor, has an effect opposite of natural selection. Rather than the weak dying and the species growing stronger as a whole, the weak are living, procreating, and weakening the species as a whole.

I do not agree with this at all. When you say stronger or weaker... in relation to what? A pre-industrial society? A post computerized society?
I could very well make the claim that you yourself have a vastly inferior immune system to a caveman thousands of years ago, but is that even relevant? Weak genes in relation to what? In fact, I do not think it is modernization of medicine that affects the gene pool more than the concept of socialism weakens it. And then again you still have to say "Socialism weakens the gene pool" in relation to what? A society that requires people to be productive? Obviously if a society is over-productive in the first place, perhaps a productive gene may well in context in fact be a 'weak' gene. Relatively speaking of course.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 8:23:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
They have the right idea, but they go about it in the most retarded manner possible. Banning zoos, hunting, fishing, and pets creates more animal suffering, yet they do it because they think that animals are being unnecessarily harmed. Death by a bullet is preferable to starvation because there is too many deer. I shouldn't even have to address zoos and pets.

"Animals are being harmed. Screw logic that tells me it's actually good. Animals are being harmed!"

And they are extremely hypocritical, and they think animals and humans should be held equal.
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 3:02:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 8:56:51 PM, Lasagna wrote:
I'll defend PETA since nobody else is going to.

Let's set some contentions here:

1) There is some element of "wrongness" in animal abuse. Is it OK to, say, torture cats and dogs?

No one is claiming it's OK to torture cats and dogs; I don't believe their is a group advocating against animal cruelty, is there? PETA reiterating that contention is doing nothing but wasting internet bandwidth and sucking media attention.
2) There are some examples, most notably CAFOs, where animals are not being treated well. Harboring one million animals in one building seems pretty cold and harsh to me.

Regarding the bold text, that's an exaggerated fallacy. The maximum carrying capacity for a large CAFO is roughly around 125,000 for chickens, and that's pushing it.

At least you're admitting your being subjective. As for harboring animals in one building, I'm under the impression your narrowing it down to animals slaughtered for their meat. Of which, it's economical to have them in a confined space. It's even more illogical to want to endow them ethical treatment when they are destined to be served on a place as chicken nuggets or a hamburger. Wanting to give that genre of farm animals a luxurious life is almost as illogical a wanting to give a fly the speech of speech.
So if we can agree that animals should enjoy at least some standard of treatment, and we can agree that we have some pretty questionable practices, then we should at least be able to come to the conclusion that we should at least be doing something "for the animals."

Economically, we cannot agree. There are many farms that do the olde-fashion way of slaughtering chickens and whatnot, but their produce is typically much more expensive. I can tell you that most people would not enjoy spending their entire paycheck on a couple slices of "PETA-approved" sirloin.

It's apparent that PETA mainly targets the slaughtering of animals for consumption, of which there is no logical counter-argument to said action. It's food, we humans like meat. It's good for us; it provides fat (very long lasting energy) along with essential proteins and vitamins. I'm almost under the assumption that PETA wants to promote vegetarianism rather than ethical treatment for animals.
I'm not interested in defending specific actions by PETA, but I'll defend the logic behind having an outfit of that type.
Advocating for animals rights is entirely illogical. One must be knowledgeable of their endowed rights to utilize them, hence animals cannot have because they cannot comprehend the very concept of rights. Why do you think police officers read Miranda rights to those they arrest? But hey, if you still want that neo-liberal "feel good" emotional kick, go for it. Nobody is stopping you.
turn down for h'what
devinni01841
Posts: 1,405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 7:13:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 8:28:19 PM, JrRepublican wrote:
. Have you ever heard of sharks becoming vegetarians?

You OBVIOUSLY have never seen FINDING NEMO

Fish are our friends, not food.
There is nothing more bad-@ss than being yourself.

I solemnly swear I am up to no good.

Member of the Texas Army National Guard since 20111212

An Armed society is a polite society.