Why in the world are some people here so upset about animal rights activists?

[JanMichael]

I don't get it; post something about abused elephants, or starving stray animals, and sure as hell the posts start appearing:

"Yeah! These people could care less about the plight of (fill in the blank...kids, homeless, etc)"

I really fail to see why anyone would respond to an animal rights post with "what about people?"

If someone wants to dedicate their lives to animal rights, I say "good on ya!" Same as I do with people who extend a helping hand to people. I don't see one as "more Saintly" than the other.

[imdjh]

1. Because some of them want to save the "sea kittens"?

That would be my guess.

[ddeclue]

131. mmmm sea kittens!!!!

yummm..

:rofl:

[joeybee12]

2. I always wanna ask those people, why do you assume that people

who like animals don't like people? Seems to be what they're implying.

[redqueen]

3. This OP was inspired by a rant not just against any old activists, but PETA.

Don't know the backstory myself, but it seems that the leader has made such comments... re: people mattering less than animals or some such thing.

[JanMichael]

5. nah

it's on ANY thread that discusses the rights of animals. Peta ones are somewhat more visible, but nonetheless...

[redqueen]

6. If that's true, about PETA, then I imagine that's why...

their high profile causes people to associate animal rights activists with that organization, even if there's no association at all.

[Maru Kitteh]

57. It's true though, that any thread speaking to a concern for animals will be punctuated with

anti-animal commentary and "why don't you care about people" type statements.

[imdjh]

24. Well I would tend to agree to some degree.

I have much more concern about the lives of African elephants than those who poach them. Shoot poachers on sight if it's too much trouble to haul them in. But I also think I would much prefer to be a Ringling Brothers elephant than to be chased around Africa by some asshole who wants to kill me for my tusks or because some asshole in China thinks my tail hairs are an aphrodisiac.

[redqueen]

27. True, I agree with that as well...

it's when it's generalized that it gets weird.

Also, PETA was in the spotlight for putting so many of the animals it 'rescues' down a while back. Not sure if they've changed their policy since then, though.

[JanMichael]

4. It's definitely weird

They will be the first to post "abuse animals as a child, you will turn into a serial killer!" but, maybe can't see that people that care deeply about animals, care deeply about humans too?

Bizarre

[kctim]

7. Probably because of their non-stop badgering

that animals are equal to humans and deserve the same rights as humans.

[foxfeet]

10. IMHO, as far as the universe is concerned, animals pretty much are equal to humans.

[damntexdem]

17. As far as the universe is concerned, neither are important.

But to us, humans are important. Likewise, animals, but not as important as humans.

[foxfeet]

23. I don't fault us for taking care of our own first.

[roguevalley]

65. If you don't take of the least of them, how can you care about

people? I don't distinguish between souls.

[JonQ]

37. I've yet to see the universe show any concern for anything, really

it adheres to the laws of physics and thats about it.

So yes, we are equal, to the universe in that we're all irrelevant.

Really all that matters is how we see things. And frankly we should put humans above animals. Not that this gives license to torture or kill animals for no reason, merely that if it comes down to saving a sea kitten or saving a person you shouldn't have to think about it.

[roguevalley]

66. we ARE animals too. the idea that we aren't is the biggest heresy

of all. we are primates, hairless apes. We ARE animals too. Putting us ahead of other animals because we are somehow more important is sad. That is why things suck so badly now. We don't remember what we truly are.

[seabeyond]

83. wtf. this is amazing. truly. as you press we are all animals. are the animals all touchy feely

with each other. look at the animal kingdom and tell me how they interact with one another. kisses, hugs... or EAT each other.

i am reading people on this subthread talk as if the aminals do NOTHING to each other but take care of one another in peace and harmony and humans, HUMANS are the abusers. as humans feed and care for and protect the very animals. damn good things we are humans, beyond animal.

have you people reversed the world. what is up is down and down is up

you insist, demand, exclaim we are animals. so why then do you bitch when people act like animals and not humans

[roguevalley]

85. first of all, you are wrong. animals in the world act the way they

are supposed to. we, instead of acting with more restraint and reason like we are capable of, act like carrion dogs to each other and we do it with flags and drums and bs. you really are amazing. animals live their life the way they are supposed to without guile and emotion. humans abuse and know better and get sanctimonious and self-righteous when someone points out that they can be fucking stupider than animals because they are supposed to reason and know better and they don't. animals live for food and safety. if you don't know the difference, you are sad. nice try.

[seabeyond]

95. no, i am not wrong. where did i say animals were NOT acting like they were suppose to.

i believe my whole point is they act like animals.

people also act in kindness, compassion, protector adn a number of other things. not just the bad you seem to demand

so we leave all the emotion out, and act like animals.

what does that leave us?

in all purity of animal simply being an animal

what does that leave our world, humans adopting animal way?

is it a better world for you?

[Cetacea]

126. You excluded dolphins, who are all of the things you mentioned.

?w=289&h=144

[Ignis]

34. So...provide a philosophical/ethical refutation of that argument.

That's what we do here: We discuss things.

:shrug:

[flvegan]

41. Those are some loud crickets I'm hearing.

[Ignis]

53. Perhaps the CCF site is slow to load today?

:shrug:

[LeftyMom]

35. Humans are animals.

[Ignis]

36. Some people like to pretend that's not true.

Presumably in many cases because they think their "Creator" gave them "dominion" over non-human animals.

So, you know, lots of science involved there! :hi:

[hack89]

92. But not all animals are human

and that distinction is not a trivial one.

[Cetacea]

122. And some animals are beyond humans.

?w=289&h=144

[pitohui]

8. bad personal experiences, i will presume

i have some good friends who are animal activists, who are involved in the hard dirty work of spay/neuter and placing pets in good homes whenever possible to keep them out of the shelters -- i have other good friends who are involved in the shitty-paying field work around the planet, often in tough situations, to study animals in the wild and to determine how many of these species remain and how likely their eco-systems are to survive -- some of these are ph.D scientists getting paid nothing or next to nothing who have to hustle to fund themselves (thru art, photography, leading tour groups etc ) -- can you imagine if a physicist had to fund himself by hustling tourists into the lab? yet we accept that in the biological sciences...

those folks have EARNED their bones and they are doing a real job in the world that needs to be done, they won't hear any backchat from me

HOWEVER...

the likes of some of the folks involved PETA, who do nothing real for animals, and apparently exists as an organization to siphon off time/energy/money from the naive while making the left look loony -- those "activists" should be called out as the self-promoting fakes they are and i won't hesitate to say so -- there are people in PETA that i am convinced could not ID a living animal (other than a domestic cat or a chicken) on a freaking bet, they are that butt ignorant about anything except how to draw attention to themselves

it's just interesting that PETA is nowhere to be found when people doing the real work of helping and studying animals need $$$

[redqueen]

11. That's really sad...

that the scientists who do the grunt work have to scrape by like that.

[DinahMoeHum]

13. Strictly speaking, what your friends do is "animal welfare", NOT "animal rights"

Compared to PETA's antics, the two categories are worlds apart.

[Critters2]

15. PETA Victories, 2009...

http://www.peta.org/ABOUT/victories_date.asp?selected_year=2009

[Fastcars]

48. After Reading The List of "Victories"...

Claimed by PETA, it seems to be a monumental waste of the money donated by their members. In 8 pages of claimed victories in 2009 there seems to be four or five actual instances of helping to stop the suffering of animals. Every thing else listed is stopping a Dachshund or pig race, companies agreeing not to use apes in ads, canceling donkey basketball or something along these lines.

Seems you could get a lot more bang for your buck giving money to your local Humane Society.

[MajorChode]

86. You have very accurately described the central problem with PETA

If you want your money going to batshit crazy causes like the legal defense of ELF and ALF terrorists, or the daffy campaign to convert the world to veganism, give it to the head loon, Ingrid Newkirk. If you want to actually give to an organization that primarily works to help animals, give it to HSUS.

[Critters2]

110. Humane Societies don't do anything to protect apes, or donkeys or

well, anything else that isn't a cute doggie or kittie.

The use of animals in labs is cruel and unnecessary. So is Donkey basketball. That you don't care about all animals is irrelevant to me and other members of PETA.

[LuvNewcastle]

9. Because some people hate animals.

My dad is one of them. He gets angry every time he sees an animal rights ad. Then again, he doesn't really like people either.

[Algorem]

12. guilt

[stray cat]

14. The people who threaten and terrorize children of research scientists

or threaten to blow up houses and buildings I have trouble with. And they certainly exist and do it in the name of protecting animals. They are every bit as bad as those who threaten and kill doctors who perform abortions. Both groups claim they are terrorizing people to help either fetuses or animals.

[damntexdem]

18. Or who KILL children by vandalizing medical research.

Or for that matter, who endanger humans by trying to eliminate animal testing of consumer products.

[closeupready]

42. I feel that your post goes too far in the other direction.

This is like saying any muslim anywhere in the world who has ever failed to denounce Islamic fundamentalism killed 3,000 people in New York on 9/11/01.

[Ignis]

50. "Animal testing of consumer products" is justifiably condemned.

I've yet to read a coherent ethical defense of the need to kill thousands of rabbits every time a new brand of mascara is released.

Animal testing for research purposes has been fairly well defended by modern philosophers--whether or not one agrees with their arguments. (And I don't.) But raw, naked consumerism is hardly a deeply ethical position from which to start an argument.

[roguevalley]

67. some deserve to be endangered. they test tasers by putting

dogs and pigs under and taze them up to 200 times. they also test some things by using blow torches on living pigs. I saw that once and it haunts me to this day. That pig cried like a bitch and when they turned its side to bacon fat, they poked at its still living body ignoring its suffering. I wish and hope that all of them die a terrible lingering death.

[Maru Kitteh]

77. Thank you. Anyone who did that to a living thing will hopefully get theirs in return.

Torture, pain, agony and terror would be all well deserved.

[armyowalgreens]

84. We no longer need animal testing. So that point is moot.

[LeftishBrit]

19. Exactly

And some of the more extreme types even target anyone who works in a university where animal research is done, even if they have nothing to do with it.

[PVnRT]

44. I've seen on this website, people denying that that has anything to do with terrorism

It's just "property damage" and perfectly OK. They're not trying to terrorize the scientists who work in those buildings at all, of course.

As for the death threats, those are just "lone nuts," of course.

[paulsby]

45. we see that with ELF all the time too

"it's not terrorism. it's just property damage"

if neo nazis spray paint a swastika on a church, that is "just property damage" and not terrorism?

[Ignis]

51. So, specificity is a bad thing now?

The vast majority of those involved in the AR movement do not call in death threats. The people who do are nuts, regardless of whether or not they're acting alone.

And property damage is not morally equivalent to physical violence against another human being. Those who make the argument that destroying a vivisection lab is "just as bad" as shooting a doctor who performs abortions deserve to have their argument condemned.

---

In other shocking news, the views of Louis Farrakhan do not represent the views of the vast majority of those who campaign for civil rights.

[PVnRT]

61. Terrorism includes threats of violence

I never said it was "just as bad as killing an abortion doctor." Quit putting words in my mouth.

Anyone who thinks that the goal of destroying labs isn't to frighten off scientists doing legitimate research is simply naive.

[Ignis]

62. Hey, thanks for addressing my points!

Except for the part where you didn't, at all. :shrug: So, you could try doing that.

And no one put words in your mouth. :eyes: In fact, I didn't use the second person voice once in my last post.

[MajorChode]

87. Behind every direct action nut are dozens more encouraging them

Not every militia member bombed a federal building and not every anti-abortion activist shoots doctors and not every KKK member lynches people either. However, they do form a support network for those who do.

As far as condemning arguments go, arson is a violent act whether you realize it or not. Torching a home when you don't know (or care) who is in it or where the fire is going to end, is an act of extreme violence. A university professor's home was torched and the people who did it knew him and his family were in it. They had to escape through a window to get out of the house. When you use violence or the threat of violence to achieve a political goal, that's terrorism.

Typically the people who do these acts get frustrated when handing out leaflets isn't as effective as they thought and their actions will continue to escalate. Eventually people are hurt and killed. This is already happening in Europe where direct action groups have been around longer. So yes, it is just the same basic thing as the anti-abortionists, it's just not as advanced yet.

And you are exactly right that these people don't represent the views of all those on the side of AR, but that's exactly why more of people need to stand up and condemn the direct action lunatic fringe. Instead of doing that, Ingrid Newkirk pays their legal bills. So what kind of message do you think that sends?

[Ignis]

97. The problem is that you're comparing AR to horrible groups.

Militia wackos? The KKK? Come on, those aren't valid comparisons to the AR movement. It's not like there's a wing of the KKK that's not horrible, is there?

Again, the AR movement is large and diverse, just like the civil rights movement. Extremists do NOT represent the vast majority of the movement in either case, but they are often vocal, well-funded, and (as you correctly point out) supported by networks of fellow extremists. However, that still doesn't mean that ALF or NoI represent the views and actions of most who self-identify as being in the AR or Civil Rights movements, respectively.

I'm not trying to dismiss your thoughtful response out of hand, but pointing to a very small segment of a larger population and stereotyping that fringe as the mainstream makes it hard to take this argument seriously.

All I'm asking is that those who oppose violent, direct action (and I think that's most of us at DU) put down the broad brushes.

[MajorChode]

101. No, that's not what I'm doing

I'm sorry if I wasn't more clear, but that's definitely not the point I was trying to make.

My point is there definitely are some groups within the AR movement that are composed of fringe nuts. I would never suggest that the HSUS is like the KKK, but I most certainly will suggest that groups like ALF are cut from the same cloth as other organizations that indirectly advocate violence and seek to deny people basic civil rights. Then you also have groups like PETA who are in the middle and indirectly support direct action groups.

Any activist movement that gets large enough is going to eventually attract fringe nuts. There will eventually be people who are not satisfied with civil methods and the slow pace of changing public opinion and they will decide to take direct action. We saw this in the civil rights movement, we saw this in the environmental movement, we saw this in the anti-abortion movement. There's countless other examples. What they don't understand is the only vehicle to significant change IS public opinion, and their methods are absolutely viral to those ends. There are those here who think ALF is a great group of guys. ALF is the more destructive to the AR movement than an army of seal clubbers, yet PETA supports them directly and indirectly.

[Ignis]

106. Much clearer, thank you.

The trouble is that not everyone is a pacifist, and there will always be those espousing direct action on the fringes of any otherwise-peaceful movement.

Just as we condemn Republicans who point to black bloc "anarchists" destroying Starbucks' windows at the fringes of anti-war marches and blame Democrats, or Liberalism, or the anti-war movement, should we not give the AR movement the same courtesy? If not, why not?

[MajorChode]

111. I'm not sure what courtesies you're wanting me to give

I've never looked at the entire AR movement as a cohesive unit. I don't even blame some AR organizations for simply ignoring the antics of the lunatic fringe. Although I think it would be a great idea if they strongly condemned illegal activities, I don't hold them responsible for the actions of others because they don't.

PETA is a different matter. You have Ingrid Newkirk who not only encourages direct action, but there's strong evidence that she's heavily connected to it. Now I hear people say they support PETA, just not arson and other violent acts. I can't see how they reconcile those two things. You have the head of the organization who is just another nut off the same tree as the fringe looneys, yet there is no movement I can see to throw her out of the organization as she deserves. It's not as if you're talking about some rebel faction of a loosely formed network of activists, you're talking about the head of a multimillion dollar organization. I quit the NRA many, many years ago when the loons took over the asylum. I may like some of the things they do, but I'm not going to support an organization that is lead by nutbags and all the while make apologies for their nuttery.

[Ignis]

52. OK, but what % of the AR movement does that? (nt)

[armyowalgreens]

70. I support most of the actions of the ALF.

Attack infrastructure and damage equipment.

I do not support harming people, though.

[flvegan]

73. The ALF in no way advocates harming people.

Matter of fact, their guidelines forbids it.

[armyowalgreens]

78. I know.

I was just making a general statement.

[flvegan]

82. Right

I was just punctuating what you were saying.

[MajorChode]

89. That's because they would get their asses sued off if it didn't

I'm sure operation rescue has a non-violence clause buried in their manifesto for the same reason. That didn't stop them from posting the address of Dr. Tiller though, does it?

I think I'll go with the SPLC
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp

[flvegan]

91. Who specifically would get sued?

[MajorChode]

93. Pretty much any organization or person that chooses to associate with ALF

SHAC is an excellent example. Just because these people choose to wear masks and stay in the shadows, doesn't mean they don't have collective resources or can't be found.

[flvegan]

94. What does SHAC have to do with suing the ALF?

That doesn't make any sense. Members of SHAC did indeed get into quite the bit of trouble, costing them their freedom and a chunk of cash. I fail to see where this somehow links with holding the ALF financially responsible for anything.

No, really this is intriguing. Lets just say that I owned Chiron, one of SHAC's targets, okay. I lost some money due to SHAC or this ALF. I want my money back. I've got the SHAC kids already and now I want my pound of flesh from the ALF. Who specifically do I name in the style of my lawsuit, and who might the RA be for service of process? Do you know offhand who the Board of Directors is for the ALF?

Or are you saying that ANYone that might associate themselves with this ALF can be held responsible in any action by anyone else that claims association with this ALF? Such that someone that liberates mink in California and someone that sinks a whaler in Iceland should be sued in conjunction with someone that steals a puppy from a backyard somewhere?

[MajorChode]

99. I'm saying it's no different than any other terrorist organization

I don't think Al-Qaeda has too many branch offices locally either, but I'm reasonably sure those who provide aid and comfort to them can and have been sued.

Now I'm sure you have some idealist notion that ALF is nothing more than an idea perpetuated by groups of like minded individuals that communicate via chat rooms so they can figure out which puppies they need to kidnap before they are slaughtered by Michael Vick. But the reality is that they are an international organization that is sponsored by people who do have significant means.

edit: left out a word.

[flvegan]

102. That's hilarious.

Seriously though, getting back to your original point of "suing the ALF" I'm going to ask again, using another fun example. Lets say that 15 people of no organizational affiliation break into a small puppy mill. While there, they steal all 75 dogs and once the animals are gone, they trash the cages and everything else that allowed the mill to function. Owners find out the damage the next day, call the cops. Cops find a spray painted message that says, yada yada we'll be back yada yada, signed the ALF. In a week all 15 are busted, then tried, convicted, ordered to pay restitution...but these folks have zero financial resources. Mill owners decide to sue this "ALF" that allegedly left that message. So, is the style Jones v ALF a/k/a Animal Liberation Front? Where does one serve the ALF? Does this "international organization" with significant means have some spiffy underground lair somewhere? The ALFCave? I know, The ALFortress of Solitude.

I wonder who would have jurisdiction over that. Wow. That is a puzzler.

[MajorChode]

104. So now I have to answer every half-fast irrelevant hypothetical scenario you can come up with?

Why you think anyone would actually be stupid enough to play that game is the real puzzler.

[flvegan]

105. Of course not.

I'm simply trying to develop a scenario where you can attempt to back up your claim that this ALF would "get their asses sued off" in response to the simple statement I made that part of the ALF guidelines prohibits harming anyone. I'm trying to wrap my mind around the absurd notion of suing a non-entity like this ALF.

[MajorChode]

107. Ok, since you like hypothetical analogies, here's some for you

Let's say Johnny Jihad breaks into a synagogue in Hoboken, NJ, busts up a few Menorahs, pisses antisemitic rhetoric in the snow outside, and on the way out, he writes, "Hamas was here" on the door. Now does that mean the aforementioned synagogue can now go sue the House of Saud? Well, probably not.

Now let's look at a different scenario. Let's say the local Aryan Knuckledraggers read on their national website that the time for action is now, so they decide to load up some log chains in the back of their pickup and take a road trip to Jasper, TX. The problem is, none of these morans has a dollar between them. So they drive down to known white supremacist sympathizer Joe Bob's hardware store and ask if he can bankroll the trip. Now Joe Bob sees the log chains, and he knows there's not more than 4 or 5 synapses actively firing between the whole group and they have a propensity toward violence, but he decides to finance the trip anyway. So while the Good-Ol-Boys are having a great time down in Jasper burning crosses and such, they happen to light off a shack and kill an entire family. So the question is, can the relatives of the deceased family sue Joe Bob for providing material support to the Aryan Knuckledraggers? Well, all Joe Bob has to say is it says right on their web site (or at least 8-12 clicks deep in small print) that they are a 'non-violent' organization. So he says he just thought they were going to hand out pamphlets and sing Dixie down by the courthouse. Well maybe that helps him and maybe it doesn't, but it probably makes him feel a little better about handing money over to those clowns in the first place.

Now, if you want to get past the analogies and talk about something more real world, explain to me how Ingrid Newkirk managed to come into the possession of stolen documents and a videotape of her terrorist buddy and self proclaimed ALF spokesman Rodney Adam Coronado torching an MSU lab.

Hope that helps.

Cheers!

[flvegan]

112. So then you can't back your original claim up then?

[MajorChode]

113. I already did

Now I don't really expect you to accept any of it since you're already on record saying you support the brave ALF mask wearers. However my standard for supporting my assertions doesn't include convincing those who refuse all forms of reason and logic.

The fact that you simply ignored the connection between Rodney Adam Coronado and Ingrid Newkirk didn't go unnoticed either. I was going to also ask how PETA came to publish an ALF claim of responsibility after one of their terrorist attacks also, but I'm sure you'll just ignore that question also and keep pretending I don't support my assertions.

Have a nice day.

[flvegan]

115. Where exactly did you do that?

Yeah, you didn't. Whatever.

I support the liberation of animals, yes. I don't support some of the tactics that people use thinking they do so in the name of animal rights in some instances, no. I think anyone that uses fire or bombs or that sort of thing is going way too far.

As far as Coronado and Newkirk go, I wish I knew. Ingrid has long been an advocate for liberation as well. Were it 1992 or 93, whenever it was, and I wanted my work that I did thinking it was in the name of animal rights to get headlines, I probably would have gone to her as well. There was no Bite Back way back then. I don't see how publishing a communique indicts them, though. I don't recall PETA being brought up on any charges in the MSU affair. Nor do I recall them being sued. Nor do I recall much of anything being made of them in it except during his sentencing. I could be wrong. I'll go look at the Center for Consumer Freedom site and see which half-truths you're basing your talking points on and look it up.

Lastly, I've met Rod Coronado myself. Yup. He spoke at a conference that I spoke at. He took me aside and thanked me for my work. We served on a Q&A panel together. In my brief time with him, I found him quite...charming. Would never guess he'd have done such things.

Gosh. I'm going to be so hurt since you'll think I'm a terrorist myself now. Sigh. Whatever will I do?

[yewberry]

116. Look out, yer gonna get sued.

You sat next to a terraist, so you must be part of the axis of evil. Get a lawyer.

[MajorChode]

117. I've read you like a book all along

First I told you that you'd simply try to minimalize ALF as a terrorist organization and you did that. Then I said you'd never accept any support of any assertion because you simply have no interest in being reasonable and you fulfilled that prophecy as well. The only thing I got wrong was that you'd continue to ignore the associations between Ingrid Newkirk and ALF, and you only begrudgingly do that because I pressed you on the matter. Then the best you can offer is simply feigned ignorance and apologies.

I never claimed PETA was brought up on charges or was sued. My assertion was specifically that these organizations and people hide behind statements of non-violence in order to shield themselves from liability. Now you want to accuse ME of half-truths? How rich of you! You can't even get half of it.

Cheers!

[flvegan]

119. Your world must be real comfy

for you to see shit that way.

Your assertion, if you look back, is that the ALF would get their asses sued off. You have failed to assert how that would come about. You ducked the question over and over when called on that fact until you just ultimately decided you had proved your point. Might work in kindergarten, I guess. And yes, I thought that your half-ass observation had some merit that deserved discussing beyond that. I offered what I know about it. The fact that you know even less about it, short of what you can find on right wing websites is almost funny.

You weren't even a book to read to begin with.

Laughable.

[MajorChode]

120. Try not to work up an anxiety boil, OK?

Not only did I provide analogies, which seems to be your preferred method of Big Bird reasoning, I gave you a direct example of how PETA hides behind such non-violence disclaimers while at the same time encouraging and supporting violence. If that's not good enough for you, I'll gladly invite you to go pound sand. I'm not going to get into some type of moronic argument that I did or didn't support my assertion with someone whose tactic is just to deny the obvious.

I'm going to let this be my least response on this line, as it looks like you're about to pop a vein.

Have a nice day!

[flvegan]

121. Thanks

for the chuckle.

This one goes in your Fail column, btw.

You have a nice evening.

[MajorChode]

90. Well when you can't achieve your political goals at the ballot box, there's always terrorism

[armyowalgreens]

118. Yes. When all legal methods of achieving your goals fail, the next step is obvious.

And, yes, I am being absolutely serious.

[damntexdem]

16. Because they don't care about humans.

Because they claim INDIVIDUAL rights for animals -- something incompatible with environmental health as well as human health.

Because some of them vandalize important medical research.

Shall I go on?

To me, PETA is as much the enemy as the GOP.

[BlooInBloo]

20. They freely admit to believing that mere animals are as morally valuable or more so...

than people.

I commend their honesty. I condemn their literal inhumanity.

[Ignis]

59. I'd be willing to bet that's just not true for most AR proponents.

I think most people in the AR movement intuitively understand that the rights of humans are not precisely equivalent to those of non-human animals in all cases.

For example, I can't think of a single AR person I know who would say that any human should avoid using animal-byproduct-based drugs/medicine when no vegetarian options are available.

---

Most of us already use an intuitive "moral spectrum" to value certain human lives over others, relative to a given situation. Are female and young humans more morally valuable than adult, male humans? Perhaps not, but we still use the "women and children first" ethic in many emergency situations.

AR proponents simply include human and non-human animals in the broad moral spectrum involved. Killing fly larvae is probably not morally equivalent to killing a chimpanzee for most of us, whether we work for AR causes or not.

[BlooInBloo]

124. Here's how you know that's complete bullshit....

Morality is a system of rights and responsibilities (or permissions/prohibitions, or whatever your favorite terminology may be). Critters with a seat at the great morality game have both.

We hear plenty about supposed moral rights of non-people, but nothing about any *moral responsibilities* that all players of the morality game have. Why is that?

I know the answer. Because they don't have a seat in the morality game.

Irony: Animal rights people pretending to be intellectual like to accuse others of "specism". In fact they're the ones guilty of the charge. The only animals they care about are those with *human-like* looks or mannerisms. The more human-like, the more they care. The less human-like, the less they care.

EDIT: And for an affirmative defense: I'm not specist in the least. I deliberately use the term "people" (a sociological being) rather than "human" (a biological being) to mark this out. There *could* be non-humans who play the morality game, someday, somewhere. We just don't know of any at the moment.

[Cetacea]

123. Dolphins might be. There goes your argument.

?w=289&h=144

Greater self-restraint than humans, longer short term memory, more associational cortex, the area that the great apes never developed. More nerves and an extra lobe that is thought to be dedicated to sensory information. Highly developed social structure, interdependence, more time spent in play, having sex,and chattering. The ability to "see" into one anothers bodies, and a possible vocabulary that includes up to one trillion "words".
Living in their environment since the time we were tree shrews, live longer than humans, and the young have a fully developed brain at two years. These three facts already fulfill three of the four criteria for intelligence at the current time.

[Confusious]

21. Are you talking about real animal rights activists

Or PETA?

[TxRider]

22. I'm not upset, I think they are pretty funny usually

The one's doing the real work you never see, them I support.

[Nye Bevan]

25. Because they don't care about animals who might *want* to be in circuses

as opposed to wandering around the Savannah all day, bored out of their minds most of the time, except when they are being attacked by predators.

[Arugula Latte]

30. Oh, yeah, animals just loved being chained, being carted around

from town to town, being forced to endlessly perform mindless tricks, and getting hit with spiked poles. Of course they'd choose such a wonderful life.

:eyes:

Get real.

[roguevalley]

68. they beat baby elephants to make them perform and sometimes

they get killed by a parent or the animal. Elephants never forget and I wish that circuses and shit would die. soon.

[Arugula Latte]

76. I know. It's disgusting. Elephants are amazingly intelligent, sensitive animals

I don't know how people can go to circuses and watch those poor animals perform and think it's entertaining. I will never, ever take my kids to a circus (unless it's Cirque du Soleil or something) or to a rodeo.

[Cetacea]

128. Yes. It's really sad. eom

[Skip Intro]

26. I don't get it either. Some have said animal rights activists go too far, but I don't think that's

the whole story.

Most of the bashing I see here revolves around PETA and some outrageous thing they've done that harms no one but offends some sensibility, thereby gaining press coverage of their organization and its goals. Imho, a nation where needless pain and suffering, around the clock on a massive scale, is an acceptable thing is probably a nation that needs it sensibilities shocked.

[Annces]

28. I think it has to do with people's egos

many people actually do derive confidence thinking their place in the world as humans is the pinnacle and animals are just evolutionary beasts with no feelings or souls. These same people usually want everyone to think they are so great, vanity and ego. Also many people want to use animals to make money, so value money over life. And - it is still a growing movement, unlike women's rights or black rights, which many people will go along with or even champion because it has social cache.

[Annces]

29. It comes down to ending suffering of all sentient beings as the Buddha preached

that is the basis, the main point.

[imdjh]

31. velvet-glove slavery beats the hell out of survival of the fittest

You can argue that humans work voluntarily while elephants are slaves working for food, clothing, shelter, and to avoid punishment but I think a case could be made that that is an argument of degree or perspective.

I'd rather be a circus elephant, learning to do tricks even if the trainer slaps me now and then, than to have a lion trying to eat me starting with ripping open my ass while his friends corner me.

I know it's hard for some to believe, but velvet-glove slavery beats the hell out of survival of the fittest, especially if you aren't the fittest.

[Ignis]

55. "I'd rather be a circus elephant." -- It's great that you have that choice.

Most elephants aren't so lucky. Without animal rights laws, they are free to be mistreated by humans in every way imaginable.

Ultimately, this "velvet-glove slavery" argument devolves into "might makes right."

[imdjh]

69. Do they have less choice than a human caught in a wave of humanity?

One could view it that the deal for elephants is that they need to accept that they will live in parks or work in elephant work venues or be steamrolled as a species. How different is that from hunter-gatherer humans being faced with the reality that agricultural humans will drive them out, or even kill them if they stand in the way of the wave of change and alteration of the habitat such that it is no longer possible to maintain the fading way of life?

[Ignis]

71. It sounds as if you're arguing for "Social Darwinism."

1) If you accept the basic concept of the social contract of rights and laws, and
2) You also start from a position that assumes humans to be superior to non-human animals because of our ability to reason, then
3) How can you not logically conclude that humanity has a unique duty to establish laws for other humans to govern acceptable standards of interaction with animals?

We obviously cannot establish laws to govern animals, right? :shrug: We can only govern the behavior of other humans.

The only way to start the philosophical-cum-legislative process of creating a protective law is to assign some sort of right to the animal that would be violated.

Again, if humans are superior to animals because of our ability to reason, then we cannot be held to the same "survival of the fittest" standards when it comes to establishing the social contract of our laws. That way leads to classism, racism, oligarchy, and madness.

[imdjh]

72. That sounds pretty complicated.

Mostly, I just want to stop people from killing whales, polar bears, and elephants. I don't care whether they are tribal primitivists or great white hunters on safari or Japanese whaling fleets- I want it to stop. It serves no useful purpose for which there isn't a valid substitute.

[Ignis]

75. Well, I can't argue with you there. (nt)

[hamsterjill]

32. As someone involved in animal rescue

As someone involved in animal rescue, I constantly get the "people guilt" trips. "What about starving children?" And then there is always someone one has to put "abortion" into the conversation one way or the other. "Well, if people would quit worrying about saving animals and worry about saving babies", etc.

My answer to them is always the same. I refuse to believe that we as a civilization are only capable of picking one subject and enacting change. I then start asking them what THEY HAVE DONE to better whatever particular cause it is that they mention.

And what have the great majority done for their particular cause? Absolutely nothing.

[NeedleCast]

33. I doubt anyone here opposes animal rights. Some of us do oppose some of the tactics used

and PETA is a frequent offender.

[merh]

39. You do realize that not all members of PETA use the tactics

that bother you and not all animal rights activists are members of PETA and/or agree with the heavy handed tactics, don't you?

[NeedleCast]

46. Yes, obviously

Isn't that exactly what I just said? I'm not sure how I can make it any more clear.

I know no one at DU who does not support animal rights. Some more strongly than others, but that's a different matter. What some of us don't support are the antics of some of the members and I generally assume the antics of the members are usually condoned by the organizations.

[merh]

49. There is your mistake.

"I generally assume the antics of the members are usually condoned by the organizations."

Is that how you feel about ACORN?

[redqueen]

54. Are ACORN's top officials as over-the-top as Ingrid Newkirk?

If so, then yes... ACORN's reputation would suffer (more) and if that attitude were flaunted then yes, people might start to associate that behavior with every community organizer.

[merh]

63. Some do

the right, but they tend to have issues with rational or reasoned thought.

[redqueen]

64. LOL

Yes, nobody on this site or on the left in general ever displays that characteristic... ever ever ever.

:rofl:

[JonQ]

38. I think there are animal rights activists who care only about animals

and don't care/are hostile to humans.

But it would be wrong to apply that to every single one.

[closeupready]

40. I'll give you an example of how obnoxious some animal rights defenders here are:

I posted a thread in the Lounge about having used - FOR THE FIRST AND ONLY TIME - glue traps in order to catch a single mouse which was on the loose in my kitchen. It worked, and then I faced the dilemma of what to do. Note: I am not Sylvester Stallone - I am a gay man who loves animals, even mice, because they are so cute, but these are vermin, carry disease, and I am unwilling to share my living space with them. So in the ten minutes I had remaining between finishing my morning shower and leaving the house, I had to decide how to dispose of this mouse - so doing a quick google, I thought I read that if you want to help a mouse extract itself from a glue trap, pour some vegetable oil over the mouse, and he/she will be able to work itself free.

Anyway, long story short, I get flamed relentlessly from this insane animal rights asshole screaming for vengeance, and people are chiming in support for my questions, 'why are you being so rude?' and on and on and on it went. I finally just said, "fuck this shit" and put him on ignore.

But it leaves a bad taste in my mouth knowing that there are some among this group who take no prisoners, antagonize people relentlessly, even those who seek to educate themselves.

Note that the majority of animal rights supporters are NOT like that.

[redqueen]

43. Exactly... not all animal rights supporters are like that...

but those are the ones that tend to get noticed, like PETA with their antics.

If enough people experience that bad aftertaste business, and enough of those aren't careful about directing their ire solely at those who do act that way... that could very well explain a lot of the stuff the OP is asking about.

[and-justice-for-all]

58. A mouse does not need to share your living space...

I do not want to kill them, nor would I consider it, but I would have to evict the mouse; if my three kitties have not already assaulted the poor thing.

it would be ejected from the house, not killed.

[closeupready]

60. And that is what I tried to do, i.e., I did NOT kill it. Yet,

this lunatic harangued on me in post after post after post, regardless, that I was an idiot, insane, etc. Even though I vowed never to use glue traps again.

[Critters2]

108. You didn't kill it? Then what happened to it? nt

[ampad]

79. Gee whiz

I am sorry you had to go through that. I have encountered some people like that IRL and of course on message boards. For instance,when you have to stretch and stretch to make Vick look even more horrible than what he truly is then you have gone too far.A couple of weeks ago a poster stated that the ball player that killed some poor woman in a drunk driving incident is not as bad as Vick because of intent. Vick intentionally killed the dogs but the drunk driver did not intentionally kill that woman. I'm sorry but anytime you get in a car toasted off your ass, with the intent to drive; you are intentionally putting others lives at risk. Anyone old enough to drink is old enough to understand the implications of driving while drunk. IMO, that was a poor attempt to make Vick look worse. Not only was it a reach but it was insulting. I wonder if that poster would make that claim to a chapter of MADD. Honestly, I really could not wrap my head around that one. I had to wonder something: if that drunk driver ran over a litter of puppies and the mother would the poster continue to state that there was no intent there? That is when it hit me that some folks are far off with their "causes" It is not like you have to reach to make Vick look bad. When I hear crap like that I wonder if the cause have morphed into something other than the rights of the animals.

[flvegan]

47. Broadbrushes and stereotyping = much easier than thinking.

That said, there was a time I thought DU was completely hopeless in regards to animal rights, but I think it's gotten better. Yeah, there are still some folks that can't seem to handle the concept of giving a shit about animals and can only rub those two brain cells together and come up with "I think I'll have a steak" to any thread about it. Some still automatically think of an AR activist as someone tossing paint at people in fur on the street or a lab burning terrorist, but I think that thankfully many horizons are broadening in that regard.

And I'll continue to say this to the dem activists and those working for justice for GLBTers...our playbook is wide open. Feel free to borrow as needed, no matter what you eat or wear or how much you may dislike us.

[and-justice-for-all]

56. I am VERY pro-animal and I do not give a shit if you like it or not....

Animals, unlike most human animals; are thrust in to and unvoluntarily I will add, situations and there is nothing they can do about it.

People, for a large majority, are capable of doing something about it. Either leaving the situation, calling for help or getting assistance. Animals do not have those options.

I do not ignore Human suffering and the hell we put each other through, but you do not see animals fucking each other over for a percentage.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

74. I Understand Your Case, But Of Course Dedicating It To People Is More Saintly.

I don't see how any sane or rational person could argue otherwise.

[Raine]

88. Oh of course

yeah lot's more "saintly". :sarcasm:

[johnaries]

80. I am an animal lover and anti PETA.

I am also an environmentalist and anti-ELF. Can you figure out why? I'll give you a hint, it has to do with "going too far" and causing more harm to the movement than good.

[MajorChode]

100. Exactly

I'm not sure why that simple concept is so hard for so many to understand.

[johnaries]

129. I don't either. Although I suspect it is borne of frustration and a lack

of patience at least some of the time. I also suspect that sometimes it is borne of a "holier than thou" type attitude that is evident on both Right and Left extremes.

In the case of the former, I have myself experienced great frustration on occasion. As I have grown older and more experienced, I have come to understand better what others who were older and more experienced than me tried to tell me in the past. Radical, immediate change only begets more radical and immediate change and usually not for the better. It takes time and PATIENCE to create lasting change. "You must learn patience, grasshopper!"

As for the latter, I have experienced many extremists both Left and Right whose primary motivation is not for the "cause" itself, but to prove that "they are more committed to the cause than you are!". From what I have seen this is usually caused by personal insecurities more than anything else.

But those are just my own personal opinions based on my own observations.

I probably should have just shut-up after my first comment!

[Kaleva]

127. Highly recommend your comment.

[johnaries]

130. Thank you!

:hi:

[seabeyond]

81. posters act flustered, really not getting where the issue is, regardless of the # of posts explainin

so i have to figure it is not about understanding the animosity on peta threads is not reflective of love for animal, but disdain for peta. and no, regardless of what is implied, it is not on all animal threads. there will be very few that will condone the Vicks of this world here on du, or any of the other abused animal thread.

another indication if the people stymied on this thread still doesn't get it. people are not against animal rights

people are against the extremism.

[Odin2005]

96. Some are just obnoxious, insulting to oppressed minorities, and PETA has a history of misogyny.

They terrorize and intimidate people that work in labs (OMG, mice-killers!!!).

[David Zephyr]

98. Kick.

Excellent.

[WillieW]

103. I agree with you. Animals can not help themselves and depend on us for their survival.

[Cetacea]

125. Dolphins don't. And they were here first. Still, good point.

?w=289&h=144

Killing dolphins should be legally defined as murder.

[liquid diamond]

109. Some of these activists are fanatics.

See PETA's response to Obama killing that fly.

[yewberry]

114. Well, I could give you a drawn-out, academic answer

but mostly it's because a lot of people couldn't think their way out of a paper bag.

[johnaries]

132. Hey, I'd like to hear the drawn-out, academic answer!

I'm always willing to listen and perhaps learn something new!

And I actually have had a paper bag on my head before. It was halloween, but that's another story.