PETA's controversial exhibit is online for everyone to see and judge.

[expatriot]

PETA Launches Animal Liberation Project: "We are all animals"

Please watch the online exhibit for yourself and ask if it is racist or out of line.

What's gotten all the press is PETA's comparison of the injustice and exploitation blacks have suffered with the injustice and exploitation that animals continue to suffer from. What is never mentioned in the AP articles, etc. is that the PETA project compares the suffering of animals to the exploitation and injustice that other groups have suffered as well, such as women, Native Americans and child laborers during the industrial revolution. Now, in this light, is PETA's comparison racist?

Further more is ALice Walker, the accomplished African-American author, being racist when she makes the following comparison (which is quoted in the exhibit)?

"The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than blacks were made for whites or women for men."

Here are some excerpts (click link on page I have linked to view exhibit online).

What is the common link between all atrocities in our society's past? Shameful chapters of history, such as the African slave trade, the massacre and displacement of Native Americans, the oppression of women, and forced child labor, were the products of a dangerous belief that those with power have the right to abuse those without it: that might somehow does make right. Whether for profit, convenience, or just plain amusement, this supremacist attitude caused people as a society to tolerate, perpetuate, and indignantly defend outrageously cruel acts.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." -Gandhi

"The reason for legal intervention in favor of children apply not less strongly to the case of those unfortunate slaves.... animals." -John Stuart Mill

[nankerphelge]

1. I support PETA but...

every once and a while I have to wonder about the effectiveness of their campaigns... I doubt this is convincing anyone who isn't already committed to animal rights/welfare.

[expatriot]

2. okay... but I think the actual exhibit would make people think more

than how the exhibit was represented in the media reports of it as simply "comparing chickens to blacks." If the other comparisons had been considered, charges of racism would become muted and perhaps the idea that what is being compared is humankind's ability to exploit and abuse other humans with our ability to exploit and abuse animals and the fact the fact that animals suffer from exploitation and injustce just as humans suffer from exploitation and injustice. They are not comparing the intelligence of humans with chickens or the ability to be the architects of a stratified civilization.

[Swede]

3. I think the animals need a new PR firm.

This one just isn't working out.

[expatriot]

5. please explain. What is wrong with that exhibit?nt

[Swede]

7. If it doesn't offend you,what's to explain?

PETA is the gang that can't shoot straight.

[expatriot]

8. Please help me see the light. Don't give up on me.

I need to know what is offensive to you about the exhibit.

Is it this quote?



"The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than blacks were made for whites or women for men."

By Alice Walker?

Is it the comparison of anti-feminist protests mocking the feminist movement to anti-animal rights protesters mocking animal rights?

Please tell me. Don't give up on me.

[Jim Sagle]

4. PETA is trumpeting its high-order moral blindness.

[expatriot]

6. by comparing human suffering to animal suffering? So...

Philosophers, writers, revolutionaries, etc. can make the comparison but PETA can't?

[Jim Sagle]

10. PETA can do whatever it wants.

[expatriot]

13. Care to explain, then, it's moral blindedness? nt.

[Jim Sagle]

16. You already did: it compared human and animal suffering as if they were

the equivalent.

[expatriot]

for one, a metaphoric comparison doesn't imply

an equating of the two things. You are only comparing qualities about it.

For two, if you kick a 80 lb. dog in the rib cage as hard as you can, does it hurt the dog less than if you kick a 80 lb. human child in the ribs? It obviously depends from whose perspective.


Obviously, we care more about our own than other species. But that doesn't mean we can't afford other species compassion. What PETA is really directly comparing here is our ability to abuse, exploit and commit injustice against our fellow man with our ability ato abuse, exploit and commit injustices against our fellow creatures.

[Tinoire]

9. Peta is totally correct

Columbus, upon meeting the Taino Indians of the Carribbean, wrote in his diaries that these 'creatures' were so docile they could easily be enlaved and exploited.

Animals. Docile enough to enlave, torment and exploit.

The greatest advance in human civilization was imo the taming of the wild horse because that suddenly allowed courtships and trade that never before had been possible. Dogs allowed us to tame them as they watch over us, faithful and living until the union is broken.

Yes. We enlave animals. Yes it IS indeed slavery along the lines of the cruel slavery we practiced in this country and for which we still have not apologized.

As an American Black, I applaud Peta for pointing out the similarities and for the life of me, I can't understand why so many people are offended- especially so many people that still haven't come to grips with the devastation of slavery and refuse to even consider reparations.

Go PETA. Point it out. Never mind the shocked delicate sensibilities of people who see nothing wrong with cramming chickens 30 to a pen to suffer a life of such torment that the flesh of their feet grafts onto the mesh metal flooring of their cages.

Go PETA. I applaud you.

Compare it to the slavery of my ancestors because this too is the exploitation without say-so of a "weaker" group. I do not mind...

[expatriot]

11. Thank you, and as for the NAACP's "outrage" with PETA...

It is revealing that the NAACP did not release any official statements or press releases condemning this exhibit, the only comments I found by an NAACP official was that of a spokesmen saying


"PETA operates by getting publicity any way they can," said John White, an NAACP spokesman, "They're comparing chickens to blacks?"


It seems those are the only comments in the articles from the NAACP. Call me blinded by my ideology, but can't you see a reporter calling up an NAACP spokesmen and telling the NAACP spokesmen about the exhibit and in response the spokesmen asks the reporter, "They're comparing chickens to blacks?" and then later when pressed for comment he says somethin to the effect of "Well, PETA operates by getting publicity any way they can."

Given a lack of any other official NAACP condemnation, I don't see these quotes as being very substantive.

[shockra]

48. People are all too willing to be outraged...

On the behalf of African Americans when it serves the purpose of bashing PETA, not so much when it might actually benefit African Americans.

[democracyindanger]

12. Unbelievably stupid

Incredibly fucking distasteful. Supporters can defend it all they want, but they only underline the insanity of PETA.

[expatriot]

14. PETA's insanity: animals and humans both suffer under injustice

and exploitation. Wow, that is so far out there. You're right.

[democracyindanger]

15. Keep telling yourself that.

Bet you were all in favor of PETA's previous campaign, where they used the Holocaust as the comparison. I suppose the success of their "Hey! Animals are just like Jewish people!" campaign was the basis for this "Hey! Animals are just like black people!" shitbag.

Congrats to you and PETA. I'm sure you're winning alot of converts over to your side.

[drhilarius]

17. Save your breath...

Chicken and pigs= people.

Everytime I look at my beagle I remember the thriving beagle culture of which he was once a part. I remember the days of wandering through the vast beagle libraries of science, theology, philosophy, and literature and marveling at what this culture had once produced, and would be capable of reproducing if only they were free.

Instead, my poor beagle is condemned to a life in my apartment. While he could be out, rooting through garbage, drinking stagnant water, dying of rabies or worms, being hit by cars, or being used as target practice for a pitbull, he instead is forced to endure veterinary care, three meals a day, clean water, and love.

He tells me I should stop eating meat, because cow playwrights are on the verge of surpassing Shakespeare, and chickens will soon develop a more complete theory of quantum mechanics.

[democracyindanger]

19. Hilarious, doc.

Nicely done.

[expatriot]

20. my point exactly

You seem to value life by its intellectual capacity, by its ability to reason and to engineer civilizations. Not once does PETA compare the intellectual capibilities of chickens that of blacks or Jews.

The founding quote of the modern animal rights movement was that of eighteenth century English philosopher Jeremy Bentham who wrote

"The question is not, can they reason? Nor, can they talk? But, can they suffer?"

[Matariki]

21. you feed your dog three times a day!?!

you barbarian.

[expatriot]

18. animals suffer horribly like people suffer horribly....

be they Jews, Blacks, women, Native Americans, child laborers, on and on.

What percentage of PETA members and PETA staff are either Jewish, female, blacks, Native American, etc.?

Do you have a problem comparing the suffering of animals to the suffering of humans? Do you think animals don't suffer or do you think humans don't suffer?

Do you think Gandhi, Cesar Chavez, Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell, and the other great minds and souls that have fought for animal rights are also crazy for comparing the suffering of people to the suffering of animals?

And, yes, PETA's membership is quite large and expanding rapidly every year, thank you.

[democracyindanger]

25. More insensitive, oblivious, crazy people must be being born.

Gandhi, Chavez, Einstein, Russell and all the "other great minds and souls" would have surely distanced themselves from this derogatory, racially insensitive, insulting pile of poo.

Claim all the posthumous, fictional endorsements you want. It's fucking insulting, likely racist and clearly reveals PETA as a bunch of idiots who have severe problems in relating to other human beings--thus the fixation on elevating animals to human status. The number one reason? Unlike humans, animals can't tell PETA members exactly why they're idiots.

[friesianrider]

28. My friend, Gandhi was one of the staunchest animal defenders.

"Gandhi, Chavez, Einstein, Russell and all the "other great minds and souls" would have surely distanced themselves from this derogatory, racially insensitive, insulting pile of poo."

You are horribly misinformed and are truly making an ass out of yourself, with all due respect. Do some research.

The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated... I hold that, the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man.
Mahatma Gandhi


I abhor vivisection with my whole soul. All the scientific discoveries stained with innocent blood I count as of no consequence. ~Mahatma Gandhi

Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.
Albert Einstein

A human being is a part of the whole, called by us the 'Universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is in itself a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security.
Albert Einstein, New York Post, 28 November 1972

Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do other creatures.
The Dalai Lama

[democracyindanger]

33. Your friend, Gandhi?

Knew him well, didja? Where'd you first meet him? When he was in South Africa, or later in India?

Talk about making an ass out of yourself. If I'm "horribly misinformed," you must be terribly deluded.

[shockra]

39. Well that's a lame tactic.

"Misunderstanding" the punctuation because you don't have an intelligent argument.

[democracyindanger]

41. Well that's a lame post

Devoid of absolutely anything else to say, you offer a lame, pointless observation. Lemme guess: PETA member?

[shockra]

44. No, my observation was accurate.

Congratulations on looking at the pretty picture.

[friesianrider]

30. I'd be careful with that - MANY DUers are PeTA members.

Are you honestly calling all of us insensitive, oblivious, and crazy...just because you disagree with a group we support?

[expatriot]

32. They compare human suffering to animal suffering in their quotes....

but when PETA does it... you cry foul. What is the difference?

If they compare the two in their writing, why would they oppose a visual metaphor?

[democracyindanger]

38. You don't see the difference between a general philosophical

statement and the direct equation of a chained elephant to a chained black slave?

Wow. Too bad for you. You should take some samples of the campaign and go show it to some black people. Go ahead. Print out some pieces, and tomorrow at lunch, go to some public place like a plaza or a mall, and find some black people. Show them the one with the lynching picture. Then report in and let everyone know how right you are.

Don't worry, most hospitals have internet access.

[expatriot]

54. This is specific

"The animals of the world exist for their own reasons.They were not made for humans any more than blacks were made for whites or women for men."


That is not a general statement, that is a thesis statement to wich visual comparisons could be hung.

[friesianrider]

26. Well obviously people like you...

Wouldn't be satisfied by ANYTHING PeTA says. You've obviously got a preconceived bug up your butt about them judging by all your cursing and vile comments, so your opinion is, frankly, irrelevent.

Instead of just making wide-eyed, vicious comments attacking the commercial, why not argue against it with actual logic instead of over-blown and VERY misinformed rhetoric?

Good to know there's still one or two of you ever so open-minded foaming-at-the-mouth PeTA-haters still out there. :eyes:

[democracyindanger]

31. And yet, you were compelled to reply

If you need to be convinced why the campaign is insulting and derogatory, then you don't get it, and you never will. What a sad, deluded, lonely world that must be.

[expatriot]

34. you're insulted that animals are capable of suffering? wow. now THAT

must be a pretty lonely world.

Or are you insulted by the comparison between humans' cruelty to other humans and humans' cruelty to animals?

[democracyindanger]

40. See?

Clueless. Unable to connect with or understand other human beings.

You should make a t-shirt that says, "ANIMALS=BLACK PEOPLE=ANIMALS." Bet PETA membership would skyrocket even further.

[expatriot]

47. Unable to connect with or understand other human beings?!?!?!?!

First of all, if you think that if it's a lack of empathy the average PETA member or staffer suffers from, I think you couldn't be further from the truth.

My wife is devoted to two issues: the abolition of global slavery and animals rights. She gets very emotional about both issues. She cries when she watches a video about the cocoa farms in Western Africa and she cries when she watches or reads about cruelty to animals. She lives and breathes both human rights and animal rights.. The reason I am not including myself in this is because her level of passion for compassion and empathy and concern for suffering whereever she sees it and whereever she can fight it is of such a magnitude that I can only stand in awe of it.

She is in total support of this campaign. You think she is unable to connect with or understand other human beings?

Second of all, I will stop arguing with you about animals suffering=human suffering vs. animals=humans because we are getting nowhere. I just want to ask you... why are people so resistant to being compared to animals? Scientifically, we are of the animal kingdom. We have an intellectual capacity and social structure and ability to manipulate our environments to advance our civilizations that of course other animals do not have, but those differences are SELF-APPARENT and inarguable. Why do people get so defensive about it? I just don't understand. How is it threatening to you?

[Milo_Bloom]

50. What about logic?

"why are people so resistant to being compared to animals? Scientifically, we are of the animal kingdom. We have an intellectual capacity and social structure and ability to manipulate our environments to advance our civilizations that of course other animals do not have, but those differences are SELF-APPARENT and inarguable. Why do people get so defensive about it? I just don't understand. How is it threatening to you? "

This is the thing that drives me the most crazy of all about this whole issue. Okay, lets accept humans are animals, animals are humans and everything is equal. ANIMALS EAT, KILL, TORTURE, USE OTHER ANIMALS ALL THE TIME. Some of the things that happen in nature are so incredibly evil, such as animals being slowly eaten over days while still alive, being poisened and digested by other animals. Are spiders evil? Are cats evil because they often torture smaller animals for their entertainemnt? What about when a dog tries to scare a rabbit so it can chase it. Is that evil? Don't give me the "the dog just thinks it is playing". The dog ain't that stupid... it knows it is scaring the crap out of the rabbit to make it run, so it can try and catch it. What about when a cat kills a mouse and brings it to your door as a gift... is that cute or evil? It is using the mouse as a commodity, so it must be evil, right?

Why is one animal (human) eating another animal (cow, deer, chicken, turkey, etc..), by definition, evil?

This is what I just don't understand.

[expatriot]

52. Humans have vastly superior intellectual capacity that allows

whole array of various advancements "up" from the rest of the animal kingdom. Our intellectual capabilities allow us various cognition skills that are, if not present in other animal's mental life, at least not apparent in an animal's seemingly constant series of reactions to their immediate situations.

As our intellectual capabilities allowed us advancement in the capitlizaiton of our world, our communities became more complex and so our intellectual capabilities allowed us to create social structures equal complex... etc. etc etc.

So while we "are" animals, we obviously are intellectually superior to animals. Yet animals, despite their intellectual inferiority and defenselessness to our technologies and strategies of domination, have the ability to suffer and, while their social systems are less coplex as ours, have a sense of group and bond.

Yes, no one argues that nature is not, as Tennyson wrote, "Red in tooth and claw." The fact that my cats can be brutally sadistic when they catch a grasshopper in the corner does not give me license to be brutally sadistic in my treatment of others or of other species. Because of our advanced cognitive and metacogntive traits, we have a sense of self-awareness and control that other species either do not have or do show the manifestations of. We can not blame our actions on the savagery of nature because the cornerstone of man's rise to dominance over other species was in the very ability for us to change the equation of nature and of reality. What was once a philosophical exercise has now, thanks to technological advancements, etc. is so close to being a pragmatiic alternative. We have reached a point where the expansion of our personal circles of compassion is just a choice away.

[Milo_Bloom]

55. And therein lies the problem

You seperate humans from animals at the same time you want to equate them on the same level. In the end, the only argument you really make is the one I have been supporting... against animal cruelty, but nothing here is an argument against eating meat and therein lies the problem with PETA and this ad.

Yes, animals and nature can be cruel and we can rise above that cruelty, but in the end of it all... we are just animals and animals eat and use other animals and have since the beginning and will continue forever. How they are used is a goal we can work towards and get people to join in... however, suggesting to someone that their actions are evil when similar actions by those we being equated with are not, strikes of hyprocricy.

To demand people stop eating meat is to demand us to fight against millions of years of evolution and instincts. The VAST VAST VAST majority of people will not only never jump on that wagon, but they will completely dismiss the opinion of anyone who suggests/demands or tries to guilt them into feeling that they should.. this is why PETA has become ineffective... people immediately dismiss them, as so many have done in these threads. I actually watched the presentation and then dismissed it... most people won't even go that far because the name PETA has become synonymous with crazy and is because of the radical and mostly illogical stance PETA takes on so many of these issues.

To quote my namesake (as he argued against Bloom County becomming vegetarian), "there simply are no moral absolutes in the world." Humans are going to kill animals. It's not going to stop. We are going to continue to eat them and use them for clothing and other products. However, we can stop the cruel treatment of animals being used for these purposes and that is goal even the biggest carnivore human can and will get behind if approached properly.

[expatriot]

59. I am offended at you equating animals and humans....

"we are just animals and animals eat and use other animals and have since the beginning and will continue forever."

So why is it not offensive to say humans "are just animals" when you say that but when PETA makes the comparison it is offensive?


As for me separating and equating animals and humans on the same levels... This is what I am separating and equating....

The qualities of animals and humans that I equate is, first of all, we are biologically animals, and second of all is our shared capacity to suffer.

The qualities of animals and humans thwart I separate is that the human intellectual capacity has far exceeded that of the rest of animal kingdom.


As to your later points....


They do not demand people stop eating meat. They persuade. Was I born a vegan? When I started dating my wife, who is the hardest of the hardcore animal rights activists out there, seven years ago, when I would spend weekends on her campus she would always roast cornish hens for us to eat. those little cute cornish hens. My favorite meal in the dorm cafetaria was all you can eat buffalo wings. I accepted my best friend and roommate's motto that "Plants aren't food, plants are what food eats." It was not until years later that things started happening that started cracking at the hard shell of indoctrination. And guess what did it for us? PETA videos. Farm Sanctuary videos. Now my old friend even, whose motto was "Plants are food, Plants are what food eats" no longer eats meat. He is not vegan and eats some fish but has really turned around. There is nothing genetic about it. As long as your body can find alternative sources of nutrition. It's a choice. Shit, it's late.

[Milo_Bloom]

22. Didn't work...

The problem with the campaign is that it preaches to the choir and ONLY the choir. The people who have little to no problem with animal cruelty do not see humans and animals as being on the same level, so showing similarities doesn't convince them, it just shows the source as being faulty.

I can hear it now. "Look, PETA thinks animals and humans are exactly the same... Ha ha ha, look at those liberal loonies"

Although PETA has some good goals, they tend to overshoot and wind up missing the mark, as they have done here, ultimately minimalizing any really effective anti-animal cruelty movement.

[Matariki]

23. question about PETA

Does their campaign focus on the whole 'meat is murder' thing or on the humane treatment of animals? i don't know about their agenda. would someone enlighten me?

[Milo_Bloom]

24. Unfortunately the former...

And that is where they lose many people. If they would focus on the humane treatment of animals and not the "all meat and animal products are by definition murder" they would get much further and not be marginalized quite so much.

[friesianrider]

29. Well then just what exactly do you call killing an animal for meat?

:shrug:

Just sayin'. If it isn't murder to take a life for food/fur/products/etc, what exactly is it?

[Milo_Bloom]

35. Eating, clothing, living

Just like natives did years ago and animals and natives in many parts of earth still do today.

If you want to play the equate animals to humans on every level game, then I guess everyone's cat and dog should be on a strickly vegan diet, because feeding one animal to another is murder. Heck, when I feed my lizard silk worms... that must be murder as well, right? Or does a worm not count? I value the life of my pet, but I have to extinguish 5 lives per day to keep him going, that must be wrong. No wait... it isn't.

We live on a planet where life is often sacrificed for the sake of another life. That is just the planet we live on and something everyone has to accept. Now, you want to be a vegan, that's awesome, but not for everyone and no one who choses to eat meat or wear leather clothing should be made to feel horrible for that decision... it is and has been a part of the natural order of things since life evolved on this planet.

I take steps that are personally comfortable for me. I shop at whole foods and make sure that all meat I buy is free range and as cruetly free as possible. I check the Peta list to find cruelty free products and do not purchase any product that was tested on an animal. However, I will buy products that are made from animals... using the same logic that the natives did all those years ago... The entire animal should be used... meat, skin, fur, etc. Would I buy a fur coat or aligator wallet? No, because I know the animals are being killed JUST for their skin and the meat is often wasted.

So, no, it is not murder to take a life for food/fur/products, etc... it is life, as it always has been and always will be in the future. Doing it in such a way that isn't cruel, torturous or otherwise is another discussion entirely.

[expatriot]

42. the "natural order of things " & other species' predation are not excuses.

It seems like you have to have a lot of excuses to justify your eating of meat. So what if our eyes are set in the front of our skull like those of natural carnivores if we have canines to tear flesh off of bone. We now have the understanding and ability to take control of our diet and eat healthy vegan diets, especially with dietary supplements.

You summed it up when you said, "I take steps that are personally comfortable for me." That is fine as long as you have you have come to the conclusion that the personal benefits you gain are more important and more valued to you than the suffering and cruelty caused by the industries you support. As long as you do not blame tradition, nature, culture, ec. but instead take full responsibility for the supporting the perpetuation of cruelty rather than using your moneys to support alternatives.

[Milo_Bloom]

45. No excuses, just reality...

Humans are omnivores. We eat meat, veggies and all sorts of things to keep us healthy. This is what is best for us and our health. The fact that you can take "suppliments" to try and make up for missing nutrients is cute, but it is not the same.

"That is fine as long as you have you have come to the conclusion that the personal benefits you gain are more important and more valued to you than the suffering and cruelty caused by the industries you support"

And therein lies the problem with PETA. Rather than working mainly towards eliminating the "suffering and cruetly" caused by the industry, they condemn the entire industry, which is not, in and of itself, cruel. Sorry, but this is EXACTLY why PETA keeps getting marginalized... they attempt to legislate morality and taste, rather than really working on the core issue upon which most people can agree.

[expatriot]

49. We may be naturally omnivores but we are also naturally naked

and naturally flightless. I am not an omnivore just as a growing percentage of Americans are not. Realities change. You have the power to change yours.

Furthermore, you are off on your point about how PETA does not work for "baby steps" within the system. For example, it focuses on specific meat suppliers/restaurants with specific, realizable goals for change. For example, KFC. Many non-vegetarians have joined PETA's boycott of KFC because of what are seen as gross violations, even on a comparative scale with the rest of the industy, by Pilgrim's Pride, KFC's chicken supplier. That is tangible demands. On other fronts, when PETA boycotts other businesses, they are in constant negotiations with the targetted business and PETA will accept an acceptable "compromise" if they find it truly beneficial to the situation.

[Milo_Bloom]

51. No, you are an omnivore

No matter what you do and what you eat... you are an omnivore. That is just what you are. The fact that you choose not to eat a part of your potential diet is your choice, but it doesn't change what you are. The fact that I can get into a plane doesn't change the fact that I am flightless... I can choose to use technology to fly, but I am still flightless.

The problem, again, with PETA is that they have marginalized themselves and although they sometimes can attempt specific boycotts for specific reason, most people tune them out because the overall message loses them. This latest ad is just another example of why they aren't as effective as they could be... Their conclusions exclude too many people and that is why, even when they have something worth saying, most people just tune them out.

[expatriot]

53. okay, then I am a non-practicing omnivore

A reformed omnivore... an "Omnivore for Vegus"

[shockra]

56. You can choose to eat meat, but that doesn't make you an omnivore.

The Comparative Anatomy of Eating
by Milton R. Mills, M.D.

Humans are most often described as "omnivores." This classification is based on the "observation" that humans generally eat a wide variety of plant and animal foods. However, culture, custom and training are confounding variables when looking at human dietary practices. Thus, "observation" is not the best technique to use when trying to identify the most "natural" diet for humans. While most humans are clearly "behavioral" omnivores, the question still remains as to whether humans are anatomically suited for a diet that includes animal as well as plant foods.

A better and more objective technique is to look at human anatomy and physiology. Mammals are anatomically and physiologically adapted to procure and consume particular kinds of diets. (It is common practice when examining fossils of extinct mammals to examine anatomical features to deduce the animal's probable diet.) Therefore, we can look at mammalian carnivores, herbivores (plant-eaters) and omnivores to see which anatomical and physiological features are associated with each kind of diet. Then we can look at human anatomy and physiology to see in which group we belong.

http://www.earthsave.bc.ca/materials/articles/health/comparative.html

[expatriot]

58. I had that bumper sticker on my old car!

My wife put it on my car before I was totally converted. I loved it because I got winks from hot chicks at traffic lights that made me go ***SCHWWINNNGGG*. Also got some sneers from guys in pickup trucks.

[shockra]

61. I didn't even know that was a bumper sticker.

I must have read your mind. ;)

[expatriot]

63. Your signature, "Real Men are kind to animals."

Yeah, that's a bumper sticker of PETA's.

[expatriot]

36. You just summed up the difference between animal rights and animal welfare

Animal welfare is the belief all animals deserve to be treated humanely but accept the premise that animals are rightfully the economic commodities to be capitalized upon by humanity. Animal rights is the belief that animals have interests for their own sake and that animals are not rightfully the commodites to be exploited by humanity.

on edit: please no wise cracks about how my tinfoil cats have been shamelessly exploited.

[Milo_Bloom]

43. This is the problem....

"Animal rights is the belief that animals have interests for their own sake and that animals are not rightfully the commodites to be exploited by humanity. "

It is the hypocricy in this statement that is the real problem. First, animals are often the commodities of other animals. If humans are, in fact, animals as PETA attempts to draw the connection, then humans have the same rights to use animals as commodities as other animals already do.

Second, I don't even need to go the "exploitation" of the tin foil hats, but simply to the fact that you OWN cats. You own animals because they bring you pleasure of some form. They are furry, cute, you like hearing them purr... whatever it is. They are your pets. I have no doubt they are being treated well, but if you really want to draw comparrisons, they are your slaves... there for your entertainment, no matter how well they are treated... that's all they are.

If you set them free tomorrow, they would trap, torture and kill other animals. In fact, cats are one of the few other creatures (besides humans) that will actually torture another living thing for its amusement. When I catch neighborhood cats partaking of this activity, I put a quick stop to it by grabbing the cat and allowing whatever its "plaything" is to escape.. but if we are to take a moral high ground here, than the cats that do this should be caged/jailed, right?

In short, if animals can eat animals, and humans are animals then socrates can eat animals.

[expatriot]

57. cats invited themselves to dinner 5,000 yrs ago & haven't left the table.

First point,

"animals are often the commodities of other animals."

This is not a defense. As I have discussed in other posts in this thread.

Second point...

I am against the breeding, the buying and selling of animals. Our two cats came to us as strays, the symbiotic relationship between cats and dogs and humankind developed entirely mutually. As for cats, it developed at least five thousand years ago as the wild north african small cat became attracted to the food scraps and wastes of local settlements and dogs (wolves) share a similar story. The ethics that guide companion animal "ownership" are indeed delicate, call us crazy but there is a lot in our relationship with our cats that we model after a relationship between a human parents and human children. We make plenty of accomodations that are not "ideal for us." Also, you kind of brush on another topic here: it is not as though animal rights activists are opposed to "animal management" carte blanche... there are certain realities that have arisen from our (human) complete or near complete dominion over the environment and that gives us a responsibility to help, facilitate, an animal populations ability to cope with these changes to the environment. Some people really think that we are so detached from reality that we think the best answer is to let all the animals go and dream of a happy hippy world. Obviously we are the self-appointed stewards of the animal world.

[expatriot]

27. PETA is huge organization that simultaneously works on dozens of campagins

Their web presence is huge as well as their "ground operations."

They have a number of anti-chaining and pet-population billboards in my town (Yuma, AZ) and they produce a tremendous amount of literature and such, they also do exposes and legal work, etc. etc.

Just check out www.peta.com. It is a massive maze.

[Taoschick]

37. Not racist, just incredibly inflamatory

I didn't see racism or bigotry in their online "exibit". I did find it offensive to try and draw a moral equivalency between the trail of tears or lynching and people who eat the occasional hamburger.

[JackieO]

46. Thanks, expatriot!

Nice to see a thread on this story that isn't framed by a misrepresentation of the exhibit.

[expatriot]

60. your welcome. but god I am tired.

I think I will take this pause in posts to exit stage left and go to bed.

[Spider Jerusalem]

62. Racist, no; insensitive, yes...

the reaction would be the same if PETA were to run a campaign that juxtaposed photographs of Holocaust victims, shaven-headed and emaciated, herded into pens like cattle, and their bodies stacked like cordwood at Auschwitz and Dachau, with photos of the killing floor of an abattoir. (Oh, wait...they already did that, and the reaction WAS the same.)

PETA and its members may see no functional difference between the two, but the rest of us do, and their failure to realise that, and to recognise that the two just can't be meaningfully compared, for most people, is not going to win them any sympathy.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

64. Exactly.

The moral equivalence of genocide/slavery and animal cruelty is not a rational position.

[alarcojon]

65. Part of Ingrid Newkirk's apology for that campaign:

Our mission is a profoundly human one at its heart, yet we know that we have caused pain. This was never our intention, and we are deeply sorry.

http://web.israelinsider.com/views/5475.htm

Even though she has said probably everything we do is a publicity stunt (USA Today, 9/3/91), let's take her at her word that it was never her intention to cause pain. Could we at least ask that she and her group learn from their mistakes? How hard can it be to surmise that if campaigns which show Holocaust imagery side by side with animal suffering (see "Walking Skeletons" at the top of my link) cause pain, campaigns that show stuff like this below might, just might, also cause pain?

[Spider Jerusalem]

66. That's probably asking a bit much...

the thing about zealots is that they think they're right, and don't seem to stop to think of the effect their words may have, especially when injudiciously chosen. One would rather think that the reaction to their "Holocaust" campaign would have taught them something, but that's apparently not the case.

Of course, they might just think that "any publicity is good publicity"...and these particular ad campaigns and exhibits have succeeded admirably in inspiring shock and anger (too bad for them it's not the kind they were hoping for).

[shockra]

68. Many see the comparison.

It wasn't an idea that originated with PETA.

http://www.eternaltreblinka.com/support.html

Epigraph

In his thoughts, Herman spoke a eulogy for the mouse
who had shared a portion of her life with him and who,
because of him, had left this earth. "What do they
know--all these scholars, all these philosophers, all
the leaders of the world--about such as you? They have
convinced themselves that man, the worst transgressor
of all the species, is the crown of creation. All other
creatures were created merely to provide him with food,
pelts, to be tormented, exterminated. In relation to
them, all people are Nazis; for the animals it is an
eternal Treblinka.

--Isaac Bashevis Singer, "The Letter Writer"

[xchrom]

67. i eat meat and i support peta and the spca

and if i'm at some sort of fair and there are other animal rights groups there -- i will drop them some dough too.

there is such a problem with claiming that animals ''torture'' each other -- animals would have to have minds that exist in ''future space'' in order for that to happen.
and i think there is little evidence that many animals can sense what the future is -- i.e. when the cat catches the mouse -- the cat didn't intend to torture the mouse from the outset.
the cat is momentarily caught up in the actions of the about to be deceased mouse. you cannot anthropomormise the intention of the cat.
the cat has it's own reasons for it's behavior.

and we had our own reasons for making the atom bomb and using it.

i'm for anything that makes humans a more thoughtful, more benign, more gentle being living on this planet.
in that peta and i are glad partners -- and i am less than perfect as an individual.
i am somewhat redeemed by -- i hope -- by actions i take with others -- that make me a better person and contributes to making us all live more gently.

[Catchawave]

69. More philosophy addressing the animal/slavery connection....

http://www.anima.org.ar/slavery/


"The systematic and legalized use of sentient beings that have feelings to obtain commercial earnings has reached unimaginable proportions. Raised under aberrant conditions and killed to be sold as food and clothes, tortured and destroyed in laboratories, hunted for sport, forced to unnatural behaviors in circuses, imprisoned in zoos for 'education'. The list could go on. This exploitation, based on the arbitrary discrimination that animals are subjected to, is the cause for extreme suffering and misery. The oppression goes by so unnoticed for the common citizen that when animal activists refer to animal defense, the listeners only relate it to sentimental reasons pertaining to companion animals.
Slave trade, sale of women and children under patriarchal tyranny, the burning of witches, political, religious, racist and sexist persecutions. The fight for equality among the human beings is today still a draft. But although the Cartesian conclusions about animal insensibility, according to the current scientific investigations, can motivate laughter, animal slavery is kept under the most terrifying forms of cruelty. The law approves specicism establishing animals to be "things" at the disposal of the use and enjoyment of humanity. They, who are unable to organize themselves in rebellions or labor unions, and unable of being understood in their voiceless language, suffer and die. Milan Kundera says: "Man's true kindness can only be shown in an absolutely clean and free way in connection with whom does not represent any force. The true test of humanity's morality, the deepest (located to such a depth that escapes our perception), resides in its relationship with those that are at its will: the animals. And here was where man's fundamental downfall took place, so fundamental that all others derive from it". "

Cont'd at link.