Feminists, pro-feminists, feminist allies, and assorted liberals—do not give money to PETA. Please. Someone is still giving them money and it has to stop. I say this as a vegetarian environmentalist animal lover who openly has argued that a cat has more right to life than a fetus. (Due to the conscious thought/ability to suffer factor.) Sometimes I think that PETA’s funding and tactics indicate that they’re actually a front for the meat industry to discredit vegetarians, but I know that’s not so because their tactics and philosophy come from a dark place in the human heart that also produces anti-choicers. There’s just too many similarities not to notice.
The latest offensive PETA idiocy is documented and criticized by Jill and by Chris, so I don’t need to go into it at length here. But it gives me an opportunity to point out all the various ways that PETA is more like a right-wing anti-choice organization than anything else.
They think grossing you out is an argument. A protest of people waving bloody fetus pictures and one of people waving bloody meat pictures are indistinguishable on the surface. The implication is that the bad people turn cute things into bloody things, but there’s no argument as to why this should be morally wrong, much less why it should be illegal.
They think women are just bodies to be manipulated for their ends instead of full human beings. Anti-choicers see women, particularly young fertile women, and they think, “Baby incubators.” PETA sees women, particularly young fertile women, and they think, “Bodies to undress and nab attention for our ‘cause’.”
Both exploit tender young women as cheap labor for their cause. Anti-choice groups are notorious for mining church youth groups for fresh-faced teenage girls to put at the front of their marches for photo opportunities, as if to convey the message that they can’t be that bad if the very people they want to hurt the most (women of child-bearing age) are willing to stand by them. That and it gives their mostly male leadership wank fodder. PETA notoriously recruits on college campuses, in order to snag crunchy young women, most of whom are inclined to be feminists, before these women grow up enough to realize that just because a group claims to support animal welfare doesn’t mean they are a group pro-animal people want to associate themselves with.
Both prefer to advocate for “victims” that are silent and therefore can be projected onto. It’s no coincidence that people who are bereft of arguments and prefer sentimental whining and shock tactics prefer causes where the supposed victims are not able to articulate their own desires. Animals/fetuses give them their excuse to work out all sorts of other feelings, and not just disgust and anger towards female bodies, though that seems to be part of it.
Both have a strong, irrational loathing for science. Maybe they watched too many “mad scientist” movies in their youth, but anti-choicers share with PETA members a belief that science is the enemy. Anti-choicers have made a crusade out of attacking stem cell research, even though they claim to be “pro-life” and the research has the potential to save many lives. PETA has the same attitude about research on animals, which that dedicate much of their resources to stopping, even though boring old meat-eating (which they are also against, to be fair) absolutely causes way more animal pain, suffering, and death than scientific research ever could. The levels of hostility towards scientific research are way out of proportion to the perceived problem, which inclines one to wonder if both PETA and anti-choicers dislike scientists because rationality is offensive to them.
Neither seems to care that much about the real life well-being of the objects of their advocacy as they claim to care. Anti-choice groups uniformly oppose contraception and sex education, which are the only proven methods of reducing the abortion rate overall. PETA has an unsavory history of liberating research animals only to have them die from the stress of their liberation. In fact, they don’t even need to die by accident—PETA puts down the animals they supposedly rescue. There’s allegations that PETA kills 85% of the animals they take in. Mind you, those allegations come from the food industry, so take them with a grain of salt, but there is no doubt that PETA routinely kills animals.
If you’ve been giving money to PETA, I beg you to quit and turn your animal charity dollar over to the SPCA or preferably your local no-kill shelter, especially if they run a feral cat program that is catch-neuter-release, which has been shown to help curtail animal overpopulation better than catch-and-kill. Sure, it’s not as sexy as donating to PETA, but since PETA’s definition of “sexy” is to equate naked women with slabs of meat in the grocery store, in this case, “sexy” isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
244 Responses to “Is PETA the same group as Operation Rescue?”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Did we mention the racist ads?
I haven’t seen those but it wouldn’t surprise me one bit.
Pray tell, what are the racist ads?
I’m so irritated at PETA right now that I’m begging to stoke the fucking fire.
Bonus: There are people arguing in the comments at Feministe that raging sexism on behalf of animal rights is no big deal.
There’s always been something about PETA which struck me with the same revulsion I feel for religious fundementalists. Thanks for helping to explain my antipathy towards both groups.
Not to mention the majority of members of PETA, including those in leadership positions, regularly boast about caring more about the welfare of animals than other human beings. Kinda like certain other groups that claim to care more about the fetuses than the humans carrying them. Antisocial values are a trademark of both movements.
The supposedly racist ads compared human and animal slavery. If making that comparison is, ipso facto, a racist stategy, then perhaps you should take that up with Alice Walker, who wrote the introduction to a book on the subject, The Dreaded Comparison.
They always reminded me in some ways of Scientologists - stark raving mad and impossible to reason with. What reasonable person doesn’t want animals treated with kindness and compassion? But they’ve gone way beyond that.
It’s become another cult and I fucking hate cults.
You forgot to mention the funding of eco-terrorist organizations like SHAC, ELF and ALF by PETA.
How exactly is SHAC an “eco-terrorist” organization? The link you provide only goes to a story of your stealing a PETA petition from a table and running away.
The slavery ad campaign specifically equated eating meat with American chattel slavery. They had an earlier on that equated eating meat with the Holocaust, complete with photos of people in Nazi concentration camps. The Holocaust comparison is another point of similarity with the anti-abortion nuts.
I saw both ads, and I found them offensive, not because they were inherently racist or anti-Semitic, but because they were clearly designed for shock value and to create controversy, and I find the idea of using real-life historical oppression as a marketing tool to be reprehensible.
You know, just because a black person, even a well-known and respected black person, thinks something’s ok; it doesn’t make it not racist. Or not stupid.
Also, it’s very possible that the ads were racist in a way that the book (nothing indicates that they’re connected) is not.
But RRP, we all think alike, don’t we? And despite the fact that there are millions of black folks in this country alone, we all have only one opinion on any given subject!
My feeling on PETA has always been that they’re the epitome of “Stop being on my side; you’re making my side look batshit crazy.” They’ve managed to take the cause of “be nice to the cute furry animals” and turn people against it by always going that one step too far. I’m fine with the idea that we have a responsibility to treat animals in an ethical fashion, but when you tell me I’m enslaving my cat, it’s clear that you’re nuts. (Everyone knows that the furless monkeys are mere servants to our great and powerful feline overlords.)
Everyone, please quit lumping groups like SHAC, ELF and ALF in with terrorists. Do they do counterproductive and dumb things, frequently, in the name of their cause? Yes. Do they kill people or engineer activities deliberately designed to terrorize people into going along with their “cause”? No, not really.*
Lumping ELF/ALF/etc. in with, say, people who shoot abortion doctors and fly planes into buildings, is not at all fair. It also contributes to an atmosphere in which a life sentence for setting fire to an SUV on a car lot (an act carefully arranged so as to cause no further property damage and no physical harm to any people) is acceptable, and a five-year sentence for plotting to blow up medical clinics and a gay club is also acceptable.
Obviously, illegally liberating captive animals and setting fire to SUVs is dumb and criminal. But it’s hardly terrorism.
* There have been a small handful of exceptions over the course of the last century, but those are mainly the result of mental instability, not enviromental groups conspiring to hurt people.
The difference, I think, is that the anti-choice mindset is not at its core driven by concern for the unborn. The point is to control women’s sexuality, and caring about fetuses is a respectable-sounding cover. PETA, as deranged and cynical as it is, really does seem to want to help animals (at least almost as much as it wants attention), and doesn’t care if it hurts women in the process.
I also find the comparisons of eating meat with slavery and the Holocaust less offensive than the stripper ads. The point of the Holocaust comparisons is that animals suffer just like people, and it’s just as wrong to hurt them as it is to hurt people. I don’t think I agree with that, but I think it’s a morally defensible point of view. The point of the stripper ads is that women are treated like meat, so treating women like meat is a good way to show that eating meat is wrong.
RRP, I agree, but no one has made that argument. All I have heard is folks making the claim that the comparison itself is racist and unforgivable. But why? What, exactly, is it permissable to compare to what? I have honestly never heard an argument made that went beyond the suggestion that the very comparison itself was racist.
And truthfully, I ask this as no simple defender of PETA. I have no use for their various nekkid lady campaigns. But also, in terms of getting real, practical things done PETA is pretty effective. Even the dreaded Ingrid Newkirk recognizes the benefit of the practical approach in making statements such as, “Temple Grandin has done more to reduce suffering in the world than any other person who has ever lived.” Temple Grandin, for those who don’t know, designs slaughterhouses, albeit humane ones.
I think they are equally offensive. Ok, the slavery and Holocaust ads are more offensive, but not hugely more offensive, you know what I mean?
My ex-wife is a vegetarian, but always loathed PETA. Her opposition was more tactical; she was (rightly, I think) convinced that PETA made more enemies for animal-rights folks than friends.
Oudemia, as I said, I object to the comparison because the primary purpose of making it seemed to be to shock, and to create controversy. Using slavery and the Holocaust solely to bring attention to your cause trivializes the actual horror of the event and makes it just another marketing ploy. The fact that PETA honestly doesn’t seem to understand why this would be offensive is yet another strike against them in my book.
Darkrose — what if their intention was not merely shock value, but rather to compare their cause to things that are condemned by all polite society without exception? Then, the question becomes whether or not the comparison is apt. PETA believes that animals suffer surely as any other sentient beings do. To claim that the comparison is not apt, then, one has to argue that this is not the case. Which is fine, but then that argument should be made.
“regularly boast about caring more about the welfare of animal than other human beings.”
Please provide some context, or dare I ask for it, some evidence for this silly claim. I assume that you are referring to the claim that in terms of physical suffering whether you are me, or you are you, or you are protestant, or catholic, or white, or black or young, old, intelligent, stupid, human or simian, suffering is the SAME–a claim that it is hard to dispute (though necessary if you want to continue to eat, or wear, or experiment on non-human animals.) Perhaps you are wrong and have better evidence of such “regular boasting” by the “majority of PETA members” or even, perhaps, just the “leadership.”
This claim is just downright silly. But, not that much sillier than the original posting: :
1. “They think grossing you out is an argument”: No they do not. The argument is clearly laid out in rigorous and clear way in the works of philosophers such as Singer, Regan, Degrazia, Engel, Pluhar–the list could go on. PETA thinks that images can persuade or upset in ways that might break through the unwillingness to consider the strength of the underlying argument and so they use the persuasion tactics of Madison ave. Please, give evidence of the claim that “grossing you is an argument” is believed by PETA. Rhetoric is not logic.
2. “They think women are just bodies to be manipulated for their ends instead of full human beings.” Do they really???? Because the use of a body implies that that body is “just a body.” Damn, I used my body yesterday to shovel the side-walk. . .. This is ridiculous. Unless you have some sort of evidence for “they think” you are just surmising on the basis of “use” of a person to the conclusion that they hold that there is no value apart from that “use.” That’s just nonsense. (Though if you have some evidence please share it).
3. “Both exploit tender young women as cheap labor for their cause.” If we presuppose that the display of a body is “exploitation” of “cheap labor” then yes this is possibly true. But this is a not an assumption that most people grant when the exploitation does not involve some recognizable harm (apart from the harm to the prudes and the morality police). Exploitation conceptually requires that some harm is caused. Until there is evidence that the harm exists, this assumption is tendentious or, at least, speculative–and fortunately our legal system agrees.
4. This one shouldn’t require comment. The claim that they “prefer” means that they reject other advocacy because fighting against animal abuse is “easy.” Translate this claim to abolitionists in the North in 1850’s. Or, dare I ask, provide some argument that this is so.
5. “Both have a strong, irrational loathing for science”
Your argument is that because someone is opposed to experimental methods X, therefore they loathe science. We all abhor the Tuskegee experiments, or the Nazi hypothermia experiments, this doesn’t mean we have a “strong irrational lathing for science.” Acting to stop future abuses of the use of human subjects in research does not presuppose a “loathing of science” nor in this case does PETA’s targeting of some of the most atrocious treatment of intelligent animals imply any such thing. So perhaps, again you have some evidence for this claim?
6. “Neither seems to care that much about the real life well-being of the objects of their advocacy as they claim to care. ” Although it is simple to point to several analogies between animal activists and anti-abortion activists, this last one points to the fundamental difference between the two that you seek to conceal. PETA and other animal activist organization care about the existence of actual suffering, anti-abortionists care about the “possibility” of human benefits (i.e. the existence of human subjects who will enjoy the pleasures of existence that we are familiar with). Philosophically, these positions are of completely different orders. PETA puts down animals who have no hope of enjoyable lives based (I surmise) on a Singerian view of value. When the world is overwhelmed by people who want to take care of “rescued” animals this practice will presumably end. [And parenthetically I am troubled by the need for this practice, all I know is that euthanasia was probably better for the “rescued animals” than the lives and deaths of most people’s dinner.] The tu quoque fallacy you commit here is almost too silly to include in a logic textbook.
It is not morally nor logically inconsistent to act for animals interests and euthanize animals under certain circumstances. You argue that because they euthanize therefore they do not care about animals. This is a simply fallacious argument.
Dakrose,
The primary intention surely is to change attitudes. Or are you questioning their sincerity? If the intention is not shock for its own sake, but to use shock for an end, then it is like any other form rhetoric, whether that is a pithy headline, or, a “graphic” photograph in the newspaper.
I think that the “PETA does more harm than good” liberal meme is seriously tired at this point. It takes as its evidence a handful of quotations taken out of context (from Newkirk and whathisname of Silver Springs fame) and seems to spring from a slightly Captain Renaultish shock at the use of media tactics to aid a moral argument. PETA does damn fine work. And they were doing it, with the risk of imprisonment and bodily harm, before the Whole Foods opened in your neighborhood. Sure, they make some tactical mistakes, and the Monday morning quarterbacks can blog importantly to their hearts content about it. But, PETA is working one of the most important fronts in this battle, and unfortunately it is the front where not being talked about is far worse than being talked about.
Darkrose has one answer to why it’s not an ok comparison, here’s mine.
The key issue, imo, is two fold, First, what is so horrible about chattel slavery? Why does it evoke such deep reactions? Second, what is the source of the comparison between the lives of animals that humans use and the the lives of the people who lived under the system? Is that comparison valid?
First, why is slavery such a hot button? First of all, because it was horrible. It destroyed the lives of people directly stolen and sold. It changed Africa, through huge demographic shifts due to the millions taken into the Atlantic slave trade and through huge currency influxes that bolstered the political and military power of the heads who negotiated with the European traders. It dehumanized African-Americans and left a legacy of racism that extends into this century. It’s probably that last bit that gives it such emotional power.
Second, the source of the comparison is a parallel between the lack of power of slaves and the lack of power of animals. From the Amazon link, there appears to be an attempt to make the analogy between racism and speciesism. This only works if you think or believe that our differential treatment of humans, relative to other animals, is unjustified. I don’t think that is true. I don’t accept that the rights and priviledges that we humans extend (or ought to extend) to other humans accrue to other animals. Note that I’m not saying that we aren’t animals or that we’re higher beings or any nonsense like that. What I am saying is that we make these agreements about how we treat each other because we are members of societies and that these agreements are based on an idea of reciprocity. [Please, don’t drag in the red herring about children, the disabled, or incompetent. The agreements is not between specific individuals, but within the group.]
So, the link is to exploit the powerful feelings associated with slavery by some philosophical/moral sleight of hand. That’s not really an arguement and really is more of the gross-out approach to argumentation that Amanda points out above.
One of the things I hate most about PETA, as Jeff said above, is that they make vegetarians and/or animal-rights people look like raving loonies. And yes, they are misogynist. Why else would they throw blood on women wearing fur coats but not on bikers wearing leather?
I prefer to give my spare dollars to Best Friends Animal Sanctuary or Alley Cat Allies (the latter were trap-neuter-release pioneers, bless ‘em).
And what Darkrose said about cats and humans. Most of us cat people know who is really in charge.
RRP — your offense at the comparison is conditioned by being offended by it. Yes, someone might get offended by humans being compared to animals,but the question remains whether one is getting offended by the comparison itself, or the implication of the comparison. Additionally, alleging a “gross out” approach to argumentation is specious. What one then is impugning is rhetoric itself. The anti-choice crowd routinely objects to my insistence that what they are in favor of is “chaining women to tables and forcing them to give birth.”
One of the things I hate most about PETA, as Jeff said above, is that they make vegetarians and/or animal-rights people look like raving loonies.
Yep. Whenever I say I’m a vegetarian, I get people fumbling for their anti-PETA crucifixes (crucifices?) and backing away slowly, even though I’m not adamant about any of it.
Whoops — bad phrasing. What I intended to say is that your “offense” at the comparison is conditioned by the assumption that one is degraded in the comparison.
All I have heard is folks making the claim that the comparison itself is racist and unforgivable. But why?
Because as rrp says, humans may be animals, but animals are not humans. They have feelings, but they do not have rationality. That means that we sometimes have to do things to and for animals that they cannot agree to.
If my cat is sick, I don’t ask it if it wants to go to the vet. I don’t say, “Well, the cat gets very upset when I take him to the vet, so I just won’t take him.” That would be completely irresponsible and would justify my having the cat taken away from my care.
Slavery is wrong because humans ARE rational beings. We can make long-term decisions for and by ourselves. That ability is what separates us from the other animals.
That’s why it’s offensive to compare human slavery and the Holocaust to the sufferings of animals. You are saying, “You see these human beings here? They’re just like animals, and their sufferings are exactly the same — no more and no less — than a cow’s sufferings.”
There are moral arguments to make against making animals suffer, but to say that animals are exactly like humans and have exactly the same moral agency is not just factually wrong, it’s morally wrong.
Although most of the parallels you’ve drawn comparing ‘Operation Rescue’ and PETA were spot on I think there are two important differences:
First - kittens and other small furry animals are cuddly - fetuses aren’t.
Second - the leader of PETA isn’t fetted by high government officials
And Randell Terry is a bloody hypocrite who should be _stoned_ for adultery like his Bible says.
-m
Yes, someone might get offended by humans being compared to animals,but the question remains whether one is getting offended by the comparison itself, or the implication of the comparison.
Given the long and unpleasant history in this country of blacks being not only treated like animals, but referred to in animalistic terms to this day, you’re surprised that people would be offended by it?
Jesus.
I don’t think you understood me. I didn’t say I was offended by the comparison. I said I thought it was wrong.
The gross-out approach is, to be more specific, to go for an emotional response, rather than make a specific argument.
And yes, I think it’s valid to complain about sleazy rhetorical ploys.
Mnemosyne: If my cat is sick, I don’t ask it if it wants to go to the vet. I don’t say, “Well, the cat gets very upset when I take him to the vet, so I just won’t take him.� That would be completely irresponsible and would justify my having the cat taken away from my care.
But this argument just misses the point. Surely your analogue doesn’t justify subjecting orphaned brain damaged infants to medical experimentation? No one contests the claim that it may be necessary to subject animals (whether humans or not) to beneficial actions that they cannot understand. The question is obviously whether it is right to subject such actions to injuries for the sake of benefits for US. Their understanding of it is irrelevant here.
Perhaps, this is true: “Slavery is wrong because humans ARE rational beings. We can make long-term decisions for and by ourselves.”
But, that isn’t, in fact, what separates us from other animals as Darwin and the last 50 years of primatology shows us. Our “reason” is something that we do differently than chimpanzees and gorillas.
Your claim, however, is probably not true: otherwise slavery would be justified up until the age of reason, and medical experimentation would be morally acceptable on the unintelligent or mentally incapacitated.
So, surely, that cannot be the reason it is offensive to compare such things. Your explanation is a rationalization and, unfortunately, not a good one. The age and rational capacity of the enslaved is not the point at issue–as Bentham once said–the question is merely one of suffering.
Animals are beings living on their own, not parts of anyone else’s body, like fetuses. So I think it’s fair to say they should be given more consideration than fetuses. That said, PETA sucks.
No, M., no one is surprised at it. But that is the point. To provoke, by comparison to something that is universally now understood as wrong, some minimal thoughtfulness about why suffering is wrong. The rhetorical strategy is to provoke a recognition between something that is known to be an unmitigated wrong and something –meateating — that is normally engaged in with very little thought indeed. One does not need to make claims about degrees of suffering to insist that suffering does indeed exist. To say that A is like B, is not to say that A is exacly like B in all regards. But again, I would refer you to the seminal work on the topic The Dreaded Comparison, an extended analysis of the metaphorics of degradation, which shows that the rhetorical strategies used to oppress blacks persist now and that these same strategies operate in the oppression of animals, as the terms for making them suffer for our trivial benefits.
And if it is a “sleazy rhetorical ploy” then one needs to defend the claim that rationality makes suffering matter and its absence makes it trivial. The anti-choice crowd claim that “forced birth” isn’t apt in the least.
How many links from me you want today, Amanda? You know this is one of my pet peeves (pun intended)
I always like it……
.. when someone rips PETA a new one………
No one loves animals more than me, and PETA is a freakish club.
Amanda, you are one sick dudette. But I always find myself laughing, and respecting what you say, even when I think you’re being an evil man-hating cat.
PETA is just another stop on the zealot curve.
wow. talk about some b.s. : “PETA sees women, particularly young fertile women, and they think, “Bodies to undress and nab attention for our ’cause’.â€?
you are reaching here.i’m no member. peta is extreme, but revolutions in thought are historicly drastic.embarassing in their infancy even.
what you seem to be missing is that many vegans (organic ovo-lactos make animals suffer as much as meat eaters, check the facts) believe that human rights and animal rights are inseparable. this comes from the philsophy that when you first seek to aggress or opress another human, you relegate them to the status of an animal. if an animal has greater rights , then so will those we relegate. (see iraq-darfur-etc)
i think you have talent as a writer, but as a critcal thinker, you aint no digby. try about one hundred other subjects in this fucked-up world to write on, instead of a subject that you haven’t grasped the essence of yet. go vegan, then get back to me on the animal rights high horse. you’re off the bookmark bar. bye, say high to the other cowbilly psuedos in austin for us.
Oh. My. God. You’re linking an article generated by the Center for Consumer Freedom? These people?
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/
The “mercury and trans-fat in your food not-so-bad” people? Check out the links on the left hand side of their homepage!
This rancid PR group targets anyone and everyone (including physician groups) that might damage the profits of their various multi-millionaire clienteles, such as the
good people of Phillip Morris, Coca-Cola, Wendy’s, Tyson Chicken and, my personal favorite, Monsanto.
This is what Source watch has to say about the Center for Consumer Freedom:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom
And who exactly is Rick Berman? The man so many have nicknamed “Mr. Evil?�
http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/2006-07-31-lobbyist-usat_x.htm#chart
Yes he’s spent countless millions attacking the credibility of PETA. He’s also against the minimum wage, Unions, mercury standards in food, the Disabled and MADD, but he’s not against everything, you know. He’s very much in favor of obesity, Mad cow disease and smoking. And he sounds like such a sweet fella, a real charmer:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Berman_%26_Co.
And why not? When his tactics are obviously working so well for him.
You’ve fallen for them completely.
Well you certainly convinced me that I need to increase my donations to PETA and to stop wasting time on your site. Go back 30 years and read the criticisms of feminism and gay rights from people that were couched in the language of supporting the cause, but not the tactics. You’re not being able to tell the difference between showing a picture of a dog being skinned alive for fur and anti-abortion literature just tells me you don’t belong any where near real activism. As for exploiting women - the vast majority of the animal rights movement are women who are willing to do whatever they can to try and end the horrifying suffering of 10 billion animals each year in this country alone for something that is unnecessary, unhealthy and a danger to public safety and the environment. In case you haven’t noticed, the head of PETA is a women.
It is my theory that PETA was infiltrated and taken over by anti-animal rights folks years ago.
Well, not really, but it would explain a lot.
As I figured, a lot more people willing to give money to an organization that uses it to get attention and do nothing rather than give their money to organizations that help animals for real.
Like I said at Feministe, PETA makes me wish I could get rid of all vegetation in my diet, and eat ONLY meat.
If the two really are so similar, then where are the pro-life vegans?
The levels of hostility towards scientific research are way out of proportion to the perceived problem, which inclines one to wonder if both PETA and anti-choicers dislike scientists because rationality is offensive to them.
1) If anything, PETA members were somewhat overrepresented in my UG science major. It’s probably because the socio-economic status correlated with vegetarianism is also conducive to producing pre-med students, but still.
2) Have you ever asked yourself why HIV/AIDS has gone from killing patients in two years to being a chronic condition in 25 years, while cancer research has been plugging along for 75 years but virtually all of the improvement is due to statistical artifacts? (Although there have been a couple of cancers that really have had improvements, they share something in common with HIV/AIDS: namely, the lack of a viable animal model.)
Observations like these are increasingly leading scientists to question the rationality of animal models.
Mind you, those allegations come from the food industry, so take them with a grain of salt, but there is no doubt that PETA routinely kills animals.
I used to work in a vegan restaurant in college, and we’d get people showing up with strays on a weekly basis. People hear the word “vegan” and automatically think, “oh, they take strays!”
Yes, I’m not a huge fan of their portrayal of women. But how the hell else can you get widespread publicity on such a tiny budget? At the moment, you really can’t — which is probably why feminists are losing the culture wars. (If anything, Jessica’s post about ignorant anti-feminist attacks demonstrates just how badly we’re doing.)
Hilarious. PETA defenders!
As mothers deserve more room to move than fetai, humans deserve more consideration than animals.
We got a lot of PETA member insect lovers here? Just wondering.
Look, the older I get the less meat I eat. I get it. But I don’t PETA get it.
But it was still a stretch of a crazy position to take.
Yeah, yeah.
Two of the three links you’ve created under the heading “Neither seems to care that much about the real life well-being of the objects of their advocacy as they claim to care.” track directly back to the CCF. They are a PR firm, hired to generate negative propaganda against their corporate client’s enemies.
Check my links and tell me they are a reliable source.
notice how marcotte sidestepped the rational replies and critcisms and makes a broad , sweeping genralization based on only one person’s response. she linked to CCF? that falls into the realm of “myspace veggie board troll argument”. tsk tsk- you’re supposed to be a heavy hitter, amada! this confirms my dawning suspicions about her critical thinking ability. from this day forth, she’s another “austin-pseudo-with a prince valiant” in my mind. the facade is busted. go get a chai and feed your cat. i really aint coming back.
But why not start from the point that animals are suffering and that suffering is wrong, rather than making, imo, a strained analogy? Why push an analogy that some people are going to reject out of hand with the humans are not animals argument? Why not, as Singer and others have done, go for the straight-ahead suffering argument without the window dressing of the Slave Trade?
Actually I think you’re getting Mnemosyne’s response confused with mine. I said it was a sleazy rhetorical ploy but I didn’t invoke the rationality argument. S/he invoked the rationality argument, but I don’t think anything was mentioned about sleazy rhetorical ploys.
How exactly do you come to that conclusion, Amanda? Compared to whom? PETA is responsible for McDonald’s agreeing to buy their meat only from suppliers who agree to a minimum of humane treatment for their animals. The import of this is vast. One can add to this any number of victories in the cosmetics and fashion fields. The list of their practical effects in the realm of keeping animals from excess cruelty — even if they still will end up eaten or dead — is long. This doesn’t seem like the work of extremists with whom no compromise is possible. But what you say is pretty easy — you aren’t actually answering any objections made to your arguments above. Just linking to the CCF — the “Feminists for Life” of the animal cruelty world.
What I intended to say is that your “offense� at the comparison is conditioned by the assumption that one is degraded in the comparison.
Nothing degrading about showing black people in chains alongside animals in cages, no sir!
“As I figured, a lot more people willing to give money to an organization that uses it to get attention and do nothing rather than give their money to organizations that help animals for real.”
Hmmm. OK Let’s grant that the supposition of your claim is true–that PETA uses the majority of their raised funds to “get attention” rather than “help[ing] animals for real.” Presumably, you mean that advocacy doesn’t count. I wonder what “for real” means here. Advocating for legislation? Making people aware of the situation of animals? Providing people with the information they need in order to change their lifestyle if they so desire? Pressuring corporations and institutions to change their treatment of animals? Presumably you mean none of the above, since these are all things PETA does. Maybe you mean arguing in publicly (!!!!) for the interests of a cat over a fetus? But I’m being sarcastic rather than precise.
The idea that cuddling puppies is doing something real (sorry can’t stop the sarcasm at this time of night) while trying to change the behavior through both carrots (”Hey, look at these cool celebrities who are vegan”) and metaphorical stick (”Hey, look at the stuff that you support by eating meat, wearing fur, etc.”) and functioning for a broadbased advocacy and educational purpose is not “real work” seems a little extreme. Sure, the Farm Sanctuary is doing really important “real” work.” And every no kill shelter that we can fund is doing really really important work. And every lawyer who works pro bono to stop animal suffering is doing really really really important work. And everytime someone learns of the plight of some animals because of a advocacy organization it is really important work. And every time some becomes a vegetarian/vegan it is “real benefit” for animals. But, it’s time to give PETA the recognition it deserves–despite its occasional excessive rhetoric–for bringing this to everyone’s attention, and drop the tired cynical canards. They’re in the business of getting attention, but you must demonstrate that their purpose is to get attention for this sort of knee-jerk defense to be plausible.
And for the record, I’ve never given a dime to PETA, but have given substantial sums to Noah’s Wish and the ASPCA.
Orphans of the Storm gets dough from me every year. I offer no quarter in my love of animals.
Except insects.
Still waiting to hear from the insect protecting PETA folks.
sad. oudemia has you pegged. please stop blogging and just argue on myspace. that’s your realm, marcotte. i was surprised you edited my last post. care to defend your ccf links? cant? feel silly? suckered? bamboozled? rubified?….
you should. now, i promise to never bother with you again.
And, just for the record, I’m rather fond of spiders.
They catch and eat the flyers.
Do they kill people or engineer activities deliberately designed to terrorize people into going along with their “cause�? No, not really.*
Um, what? Scientists have left the profession for fear of being targeted by PETA. They have given up potentially life-saving research because of pressure from animal-rights groups.
Yes, they have been TERRORIZED into these actions.
Operation Rescue has never openly called for abortion doctors to be killed, but they stand by silent when others do it … the way PETA does.
Two of the three links you’ve created under the heading “Neither seems to care that much about the real life well-being of the objects of their advocacy as they claim to care.� track directly back to the CCF.
And the third link, Gayle?
I guess you support untrained PETA employees euthanizing adoptable pets in the back of the PETA van and then dumping the bodies, because you sure as hell don’t seem to be upset by it.
On insects. There is really good evidence that insects are not sentient. If they are not sentient then any morally motivated vegetarian/vegan can perfectly consistently munch a tofu pup while squashing a bug. Same maybe goes for shrimp (though I think Singer argues that the line should fall somewhere “between” shrimp and mollusks. But in principle what matters for a rational moral position on animal suffering seems to be the capacity to “experience” suffering. If we have strong evidence that a living thing can’t suffer then we have a reason to not “count” its interests in our moral deliberation. Hence, the willingness to eat plants, kill bacteria, etc.. The evidence concerning insects involves the evidence of peripheral responses to nociception (roughly the rudimentary biochemical effects of injuries). Some organism process these centrally, some non-centrally. The former is a necessary (though not sufficient) for “experiencing pain.” And there is behavioral evidence to support this anatomical/biochemical view–e.g., praying mantises can continue to feed oblivious to their bodily bisection. This suggests (though does not certainly prove) that “pain” is not being processed centrally (alternatively it is but produces no behavrioral effects because it isn’t “experienced” with the aversive character that we (and most other animals) have as part of our “experience” of pain.)
Anyway, there is good reason to distinguish between insects and mammals on this ground.
I’m glad you asked!
The third link sends us to a blog entry– with no links!
“I guess you support untrained PETA employees euthanizing adoptable pets in the back of the PETA van and then dumping the bodies, because you sure as hell don’t seem to be upset by it.”
No, I don’t support malicious distortions, deliberate lies and purchased propaganda.
But this is America– you can believe all of the above if you so choose.
There are moral arguments to make against making animals suffer, but to say that animals are exactly like humans and have exactly the same moral agency is not just factually wrong, it’s morally wrong.
Saying that animals suffer just as humans do is not saying that “animals are exactly like humans.” What a ridiculous exaggeration.
Seriously, what the hell. I eat meat and I’m not going to stop, no matter how uncomfortable I am with animal suffering. I’m also not going to stop buying clothes because I don’t like sweatshops. That doesn’t mean I’m going to pretend Indonesian children don’t suffer.
In case you haven’t noticed, the head of PETA is a women.
And? So is Phyllis Schlafly. So is Leslee Unruh. So is Ann Coulter.
Are you trying to argue that we shouldn’t criticize Ingrid Newkirk because she’s a woman? That’s hardly a feminist position.
A very viable point.
But one that indicates you’re the one to draw the line between sentient and…what, merely “alive?”
And so what if they’re not that “sentient!” Have you never witnessed the insects’ desire to live? Roaches can scamper like nobody’s business.
Anyway, I have.
Is that not sentient enough?
That’s one thing I disagree with here: the cofounder (with Alex Pacheco) of PETA is Ingrid Newkirk. I’ve noticed quite a bit of enthusiasm for PETA-like among men and women alike, so I don’t think it’s quite fair to associate this with sexism. There’s also a bit of cat-lady syndrome at work here, and I’m afraid that’s a strangely female phenomenon.
And Newkirk is nuts.
“There’s also a bit of cat-lady syndrome at work here, and I’m afraid that’s a strangely female phenomenon.”
I would associate this statement with sexism, PZ.
Also, take a look at the case of Dario Ringach. ALF tried to blow him up with a homemade bomb, and terrorized him into giving up his research.
I’m with you, Amanda. Nothing is going to raise my ire with any activist organisation faster than a twice-monthly display of nubile female flesh shivering somewhere in the world in the name of a cause. I have nothing against nudity, and nothing against the display of the human body in pursuit of activist goals, but there is something seriously stinky about PETA’s never-ending supply of young, mainly white, perky, patriarchally good-looking model-figures conveniently available for the television cameras. There are other creative, visually-grabbing statements to make that don’t require the objectification of one (the human female) in pursuit of the de-objectification of the other (the animal).
I am, for the record, a no-animal-product consumer, but the “your vegetarianism means nothing if you still consume dairy/eggs” crowd raise my low vegan blood-pressure. Food consumption is a wildly complicated thing, and not everyone has the privilege, the health capability or the moral requirement to live by any one pattern of restricted eating. Veganism is hard: I can do it because I have the time, money & energy to scour shops & markets, combine proteins, and spend hours cooking- I’m privileged that way. There is no way in hell that I expect the same of anyone else.
Mnemosyne: Um, what? Scientists have left the profession for fear of being targeted by PETA. They have given up potentially life-saving research because of pressure from animal-rights groups.
Yes, they have been TERRORIZED into these actions.
Operation Rescue has never openly called for abortion doctors to be killed, but they stand by silent when others do it … the way PETA does.
For fear of PETA?? Do you have an example in mind? Dario Ringach of UCLA gave up his invasive/destructive experimentation on monkeys as a result of ALF ( not = PETA!!) actions, he claims—e.g., telling his neighbors what he does, and harassing his family, leaving molotov cocktail on a colleagues porch (well they screwed up and left on a neighbor’s porch). But, these are not PETA actions! Let’s be precise. Perhaps there are cases of “scientists” who have left their “profession” for this fear, but if you could provide examples that would be helpful for assessing whether PETA is to blame or whether we should blame the whole movement for the actions of the most radical.
But the other side of your “argument” needs addressing. The fact that some people have given up “potentially life-saving research” is beside the point. Much of the Nazi research would have been “potentially life-saving” if it had continued. It did not because it was immoral. So the fact that some research that might benefit some lives was stopped is no argument against those seeking to stop it.
The tactics are a different matter. If they have been “terrorized” then we should judge the tactics as immoral and conflate the possible immorality of the tactics with the ends. And I will grant that leaving a molotov cocktail on someone’s porch (even if perhaps unlit) is terroristic and immoral). But, I would like to know what PETA has done to “terrorize” these scientists into leaving their profession. Telling people what they do?
Actually, PZ, in my experience, the “cat lady syndrome” (seems a wee bit sexist to me, actually) is more operative with the ASPCA fetishists. Like in the intro to Singer’s Animal Liberation, the folks who fetishize the cutsie wutsie anny-mules whilst eating a ham sandwich.
And Gayle, Ingrid Newkirk’s response to the two low-level staffers on trial was
Oh, and when I gave up seafood it had nothing to do with the suffering of the little fishies and crustaceans, and everything to do with the incredibly environmentally damaging fishery processes. Yes, I care much more about the kelp than I do about the prawns. I step on cockroaches but don’t use bugspray. Go my bad-vegan self.
Slashy:
LOL.
So, you DO draw a line. And personally I think it is a good one.
But it is not going to be everyone else’s.
So it has been, is, and always will be.
That’s all.
Live and let live, ironically.
John O:
You are right, I think. The biocentric criticism of zoocentric ethical theory is worth taking seriously. Singer and others argue something like
a) in order to wrong some being X, X must be able to be harmed.
b) sentience (and the requisite neurological structures and functions) is a necessary condition for being harmed.
Thus, if a being is not sentient it cannot be “wronged” a morally relevant sense.
Biocentric ethical theorists have argued that living involves interests the deprivation of which is a harm. They deny that something must be able to experience the harm for it to be harm. This entails a radical expansion of moral consideration to all living things (hence the name biocentric).
I’m not sure what I think of this. I am sure that the Zoocentric view is true.
But aversive behavior cannot generally be taken to be sufficient evidence of the experience of pain. Though I think it is right to assume it is and err on the side of avoiding unnecessary cruelty.
oudemia,
I was referring to the CCF in that statement but I see now how that may not have been clear.
Sigh: Scientists have left the profession for fear of being targeted by PETA.
Maybe one or two, but even then I doubt it. I’m going to call bull on this one.
As someone who has worked for a major pharmaceutical company that is a main “target” of animal activists and Planned Parenthood, I can tell you that there’s absolutely no contest. Pharmas may be higher PR people to create a false yet widespread belief about “terrorism,” but at the end of the day, it’s the Planned Parenthood employees who wear bulletproof vests to work.
Sigh: They have given up potentially life-saving research because of pressure from animal-rights groups.
The overwhelming majority of American pharmaceutical research is for lifestyle and me-too drugs — nothing lifesaving. If you really want life-saving research, you’re going to have to radically overhaul pharma’s economic incentives, restructure human trial ethics, and fund bioinformatics.
Sigh: Anyway, there is good reason to distinguish between insects and mammals on this ground.
Did no one here go to Quaker school? Sheesh.
“Sentience is a necessary condition of being wronged?”
Tell it to the insect! Or, if this works better, the fish or the bird that eats the insect, or the cat that eats the bird, or the wolf that eats the cat! I say again: Mothers have more rights than a fetus living inside said mother.
You’re clearly smarter than I am. I mean it. I think I remember reading Singer 30 years ago, and still understand the point anyway.
I firmly believe there are more things we don’t know than we do. The relative sentience of an insect being one of them. But I don’t know I’m right.
Operation Rescue has never bombed anyone. They have never threatened anyone. But they have stood by and even encouraged those who do. The way PETA stands by and encourages groups like ELF and SHAC.
Operation Rescue believes that fetuses and fully grown humans are morally equivalent. PETA believes that animals and fully grown humans are morally equivalent.
Yes, it was immoral, because they experimented on HUMANS. The Tuskeegee Experiment was immoral, because they experimented on HUMANS.
Again, you are trying to argue that a cat and a human are the same thing. They are not, any more than a fetus and a fully grown human are the same thing.
I will confess my dirty secret: I value human life over animal life. Sorry, that’s just the way it is. If a thousand animals have to die to save a single AIDS victim, I’ll shed a tear for them, but I will feel that they were sacrificed for a good and moral reason.
Wow…here’s a post that’ll draw out some contentious opinion, as evidence by the responses.
I think it’s quite a stretch to equate Operation Rescue with PETA. There’s no doubt in my mind that PETA is overly ideological and far from pragmatic and rational at times. But honestly, exploitation of women as a common factor? That’s really stretching it quite a bit. And then secondly, there’s the fact that PETA and Operation Rescue advocate for two entirely different things. To me there is a considerable difference between a full grown animal and a human fetus, in that one is conscious of it’s own suffering and the other isn’t conscious at all. So it seems to me that advocating for animals that consciously feel their own pain is…different, by a wide margin.
And there’s no doubt in my mind that their overly ideological approach produces some ridiculous efforts on their part. As for industry provided data? Sorry, but that’s like asking Exxon what they think of global warming. Not gonna do it.
Mnemosyne: it’s not a “dirty secret” that humans value human life over animal life (yes, I understand you were being sarcastic, but still.) In fact, it’s completely natural. Animals cannot speak for themselves, and there is no one judging us from a distance, telling us that killing animals for our own personal gain, is immoral. Certainly the world was created/did develop in such a fashion that we were doomed to kill other creatures so that we could live ourselves. Such is the way of the world. But the fact is we kill animals routinely, for far less compelling reasons than to save AIDS patients. We kill them in the process of killing other animals that we enjoy eating. We kill them in cruel ways because it’s easier than killing them in less cruel ways. We kill them because we as a species lack the ability to control our own numbers despite having the intelligence to do so.
In other words, your argument attacks a straw man. PETA might let an AIDS patient die to save thousands of animals. Most people would not. But that’s hardly the common scenario. Rather, we kill animals for our convenience. Or so we can eat whatever we like. Or because they’re in the way. Or because it amuses us. This is the immorality that we are referring to.
You forgot one good point: both fundy anti-woman whacks and anti-human vegan whacks claim to be superior to others because they hold the moral high ground by fiat.
Operation Rescue has never bombed anyone. They have never threatened anyone. But they have stood by and even encouraged those who do. The way PETA stands by and encourages groups like ELF and SHAC.
First, SHAC has never bombed anyone. But, apart from that, surely it isn’t the job of any organization to monitor the behavior of other organizations. This sounds a little like that ridiculous Charles Krauthammer trope–”when will the islamic mainstream denounce extremism”–to which the first reply is: they do ALL THE BLOODY TIME; and the second reply is: why should they have to? Just because they have the same “other” religion????? I wouldn’t (nor would the law generally) hold Operation Rescue responsible for the actions of nutters unless they are negligent or contribute to the nutters illegal actions. So, ceteris paribus, I wouldn’t think it reasonable to hold PETA responsible for people who engage in tactics that I think are misguided or immoral.
Second: “Operation Rescue believes that fetuses and fully grown humans are morally equivalent. PETA believes that animals and fully grown humans are morally equivalent.”
Yes and abolitionists and suffragists had similar radical views about moral considerability. Even if it is true, the analogy does not reveal anything interesting. First of all PETA seems to believe that the suffering of said beings is morally equivalent which does not entail the equivalence of the sufferers–though I’m not sure whether they have a doctrinal view about this (Singer vs. Regan) But more importantly the analogy obscures the relevant differences. Anti-abortionists believe that the potentiality for human existence deserves absolute moral consideration. Animal liberationists believe that a being that can (and does) suffer deserves moral consideration. These are radically different views about moral consideration that the facile comparison obscures.
In the rest of your reply you retreat to the only coherent position for distinguishing these things–the assertion of absolute difference in moral significance of human beings and their suffering and non-human beings and their suffering. This is at least coherent and consistent. Probably not justifiable. But at least coherent.
Aside from your emotional reaction to the deaths of animals and those who die of AIDS (and such similar things have been said so often to distinguish those whose deaths “matter” (ie those who are like us) and those whose deaths don’t), the burden of argument would lie (assuming that we are rational animals who must have good reasons for our beliefs) with showing what it is about us that makes us count for so much. And then, since I suspect the strongest argument (religious–”God made us in his image, etc.) will not be chosen here, whether we shouldn’t use the brain damaged child for AIDS experimentation before we wrest another chimpanzee from its family and cage it. The justification will be compelling–better science, and probably less rational. Funny how “reason” (civilization, etc) is used over and over to justify taking what we want from beings we whose interests we dismiss.
Hey, Ms Kate,
I didn’t forget.
SIGH: Okay. After only a 5 minute search, here are some of the quotes I had in mind. Here ya go:
When asked which he would save, a dog or a baby, if a boat capsized in the
ocean: “If it were a retarded baby and a bright dog, I’d save the dog.”
Tom Regan
North Carolina State University
“If abandoning animal research means that there are some things we cannot
learn,then so be it… We have no basic right…not to be harmed by those
natural diseases we are heir to.”
Tom Regan
In response to Animal Liberation Front violence in the Pacific Northwest:
“We cannot condemn the Animal Liberation Front…they act courageously,
risking their freedom and their careers to stop the terror inflicted every
day on animals in the labs. [ALF’s activities] comprise an important part
of today’s animal protection movement.”
PETA statement - June 19, 1991
“We have a lazy, sick society. People bring diseases on themselves.
[People should] avoid getting the disease in the first place.” (sound familiar?)
Dan Mathews - PETA spokesperson
USA Today, July 27, 1994
“Probably everything we do is a publicity stunt…We are not here to
gather members, to please, to placate, to make friends. We’re here to hold
the radical line.”
Ingrid Newkirk - Founder, PETA
USA Today, September 3, 1991
“The life of an ant and the life of my child should be granted equal
consideration.”
Michael Fox - Vice President, HSUS
Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler
chickens will die this year in slaughter houses.
-Ingrid Newkirk (PETA)
Let’s see, condoning ecoterrorism, equating the lives of children with insects, comparing broiler chickens to Holocaust victims, blaming people for contracting illness, admitting that dogs are worth more to them than retarded infants. Huh. I wonder why people don’t like PETA?
I would go on, but my post is already way too long. My apologies, Amanda.
You know what’s REALLY weird?
I have “rescued” the occasional insect. Just taken it outside and let it go.
Depends on my mood, I guess.
You forgot one good point: both fundy anti-woman whacks and anti-human vegan whacks claim to be superior to others because they hold the moral high ground by fiat.
Well, if they do then they should be ignored. But if they offered reasons for their moral views that should not be rejected through ad hominem fallacious argument. Most vegans I know have reasons for their lifestyle and extremely strong argument to justify it. I don’t know many “anti-woman whacks” but I certainly have not encountered a strong “anti-woman” argument, so I will doubt that they have such arguments until someone shows me them. (I’ll distinguish the people who hold that a potential human being deserves moral considerability. This is at least a plausible argument—but then, you were only talking about “fundy anti-woman whacks” not people with reasoned opposition to termination of pregnancies!).
A good dog is worth more than a severely disabled, unlikely to live, maybe never “sentient” infant.
So there.
Just MO.
Michael Fox is (was?) the Vice President of the Humane Society of the US, and to my knowledge, not affiliated with PETA. I feel sorry for his kid, though.
A seeing-eye dog, or companion dog, is geometrically more worthy than a severely disabled, non-sentient infant.
This is fun!
Here’s one pro-life organization arguing that they’re the natural allies of PETA, even quoting Ingrid Newkirk:
“Similar Principles: The Animal Rights Movement, Feminism, and Abortion Opponents”
Anti-abortionists believe that the potentiality for human existence deserves absolute moral consideration. Animal liberationists believe that a being that can (and does) suffer deserves moral consideration. These are radically different views about moral consideration that the facile comparison obscures.
How are they different? You need to elucidate, because most of the animal rights rhetoric I’ve seen argues that animals do, in fact, deserve absolute moral consideration. Trillian has kindly posted a few quotes above for you if you just can’t seem to recall what those statements are or who made them.
Aside from your emotional reaction to the deaths of animals and those who die of AIDS (and such similar things have been said so often to distinguish those whose deaths “matter� (ie those who are like us) and those whose deaths don’t)
Yes, I realize that I am a moral midget in your eyes for finding the death of a human being more poignant than that of a chicken.
the burden of argument would lie (assuming that we are rational animals who must have good reasons for our beliefs) with showing what it is about us that makes us count for so much.
I argued that above: what makes us “count for so much” is our rationality. We have the ability to make complicated decisions about ourselves and our environment that other animals just do not have.
If you have evidence otherwise — perhaps your dog has opened an IRA to prepare for his retirement? or your cat has spoken to you about where she would like to be buried when she dies? — please present it.
Most vegans I know have reasons for their lifestyle and extremely strong argument to justify it.
Why do you have to justify it? Just do it.
But if you mean “shove it moralistically in everyone’s face with zeal not seen outside fundamentalist street preachers” as “justify”, that’s where many people draw the line.
People like my niece, who used to run a vegan restaraunt. She said it would have been a lot more fun if it weren’t for the VEGANS. Then she told me a story about organizing an anti-war rally and a group to go to the RNC in NYC. The process was somewhat disrupted by people rushing to put together a demonstration against the only sympathetic restaraunt in town because their soy cheese *might* have had rennet in it during one month earlier in the year. War on, people dying, repugs suck and they all had furiously twisted nickers about a non-zero probability of soy cheese having a taboo component and planned to attack a well-meaning business.
Actually, what you’ve quoted there, Mnem., is a journal article by someone who claims a similarity of purpose between the two causes. We could play that game all night I am sure. I think Jonah Goldberg has a whole book coming out on liberals and fascism.
The difference, I think, is that the anti-choice mindset is not at its core driven by concern for the unborn. The point is to control women’s sexuality, and caring about fetuses is a respectable-sounding cover.
I’d be reluctant to say that about any particular pro-lifer until I heard their stance on, say, contraception.
Most vegans I know have reasons for their lifestyle and extremely strong argument to justify it.
Most vegans I know also realize, once they are out of their annoying college-age years, that insisting cats are better than people, or that chickens grieve for their lost eggs, is not only stupid but tends to persuade people you are a) wrong and b) a moron. Then, when you or others perceived to be affiliated with you make arguments that are correct and non-moronic, people are unlikely to listen to you.
What about Greenpeace? Are they ok-nicey-nice? or should we repudiate them, too?
Actually, what you’ve quoted there, Mnem., is a journal article by someone who claims a similarity of purpose between the two causes. We could play that game all night I am sure.
I’m sure we could. I’m sure that this article from the Guardian UK, documenting the links between PETA and various extremist animal rights groups, is also horribly flawed, proves nothing, only has information from industry groups, and shows what a big poopyhead I am for not wholeheartedly supporting PETA.
As I’ve said before (and someone said above): PETA = Church of Scientology, with Ingrid Newkirk at the head instead of L. Ron Hubbard. After all, the Scientologists spend all of their time attacking their critics, making blanket statements about science and medicine, getting celebrity endorsements, and collecting money from naive people, just like PETA does.
that chickens grieve for their lost eggs
Or, one of my favorites, that milking a cow is torture to the animial and extremely painful.
My response: Yeah. That’s why they walk over and start butting their heads into your backside, pushing you toward the milking barn at milking time and kicking up a ruckus/fuss if you don’t drop what you are doing and comply.
I’ve also had an urban person (non vegan at least) tell me that a cow is about the size of a large dog. In both situations, the person telling me these things was not very familiar with livestock.
It is also important to add that most vegan foods would not exist if the farms they are grown on were not inhabited by livestock. That was a mistake that the back to the land crowd made bigtime, and not one made by modern farmers, even if they themselves are vegetarians or even vegans. I recently toured an organic farm run by vegetarians and they patiently explained that the animals are a critical part of the farm ecosystem, whether or not you eat them.
(and, yes, I do realize that these situations are not the case with factory farmed animials, which is why I don’t buy that kind of milk)
Well, even Tom Regan argues that only beings who have an actual capacity to experience their own welfare are “subjects of a life” and therefore possess intrinsic value, and therefore some rights. (Regan uses as a rule of thumb mammals over the age of one year to give an idea of what this involves).
A philosophical defense of abortion such as Don Marquis’ argues that a being that has the potential to be a subject of a life (well, to have a “future like ours”) has intrinsic worth and therefore some rights. (This roughly entails rights for all normally developing embryos after conception).
The quotes above–certainly the one’s from Regan–would seem to argue that what matters is an actual being that is able to suffer and not a “potentially existing sentient being.”
Hmmmm. Well, histrionics aside, my point only distinguishes between having an emotion and having a reason for a value judgment. The former are interesting biographically, the latter important for ethics.
Well, yes, I grant that the rationality requirement is a plausible view on moral considerability. The problem is that it does nothing to address our intuitions about the moral considerability of mentally incapacitated humans. Chimpanzees seem to have the rational capacity of perhaps a 4 year old. If reason is our criterion for who cannot be experimented upon, then given that trans-species inferences in medical experimentation are mostly speculative, it would be better for us to begin experimentation on human beings who have not or perhaps cannot acquire the rational capacity of a chimpanzee (brain damaged infants, mentally incapacitated humans (old, young, etc.). This is the consequence of the view that reason is what makes us count morally.
If, as I believe, the mentally incapacitated deserve moral consideration (though not perhaps all the rights that a fully functioning adult deserves), it cannot be on account of their reason. I believe that it is because they can suffer pain and experience enjoyment. But that has nothing to do with their being human (well a bit, but being human is not a necessary condition for that capacity). Therefore, I conclude that any sentient being that can suffer pain deserves some consideration. (I am not so sure about equal consideration).
That is what I would argue. Not, I would have thought obviously, that my dog is rational–of which he would never be accused.
Myth, you don’t know how close I’ve been getting to quoting my all-time favorite strip of “Dykes to Watch Out For” where Lois, after having every aspect of the dinner she’s offering a guest criticized as not quite pure enough, finally screams, “No, the rice is not organic! It was grown with toxic pesticides in a hazardous waste dump by oppressed migrant workers!”
Okay, that’s been building all night. I feel better now, and less like it’s knuckling under to PETA that I had already planned to make vegetarian chili for dinner tomorrow night. (Three bean crockpot chili with beer and chocolate sauce — we’ll see how it turns out.)
Well, now you are just changing the subject. This is of course useless, but you do realize that I pointed out that saying that some loopy author, not an organization as you had claimed (not that it matters), finding common cause between animal rights and the anti-choicers does not automatically infect the animal rights movement with anti-choice cooties, as you tried to insinuate.
Your response is to point to an article about PETA funding SHAC and ALF and sneering that I will find it “horribly flawed.” You do recognize the difference?
I don’t carry water for PETA and neither have I ever given them a cent — but clearly this is the only strategy you have left. To claim that anyone who disagrees with you opens bank accounts for their cats, rather than is concerned with needless suffering. Make an argument about that! Say that animals are so utterly morally negligible that factory farming is beneath consideration. Back that argument up. But making groundless claims of PETA worship and cat banking is boxing a straw man, and that certainly is a strategy of any number of toxic groups.
M. — Cocoa powder is really good in chili. As is molasses.
So the head of PETA is a woman, therefore PETA does not devalue women? Well, given that there is more than a little self-hatred involved in PETA’s ethos, the fact that PETA demeans women has a certain perverse logic to it. Come to think of it, more than a few women involved in porn seem to be afflicted with the demon of self-hatred as well. hmmm.
“Aside from your emotional reaction to the deaths of animals and those who die of AIDS (and such similar things have been said so often to distinguish those whose deaths “matterâ€? (ie those who are like us) and those whose deaths don’t)”
Actually, all the rats I (humanely) sacrificed last summer for research into PCB metabolism and carcinogenesis mattered to me. They should matter to everyone. Every animal that has ever been used to contribute to understanding and development of both human and veterinary medicine matters.
I’m not in the mood to philosophize about moral absolutes and whatnot right now, but just to say that if you don’t like animal research, kindly remove yourself from modern society and live in a cave, where you will never have to partake of modern medicine ever again. Please yourself.
I know that those lab rats were cared for better than we care for some of our homeless population, and died peacefully while unconscious, which is more than their cousins in the wild could say.
I also wonder if John O would be cool with scientists using retarded infants rather than dogs in their research. After all, it would yield more relevant results. So, why do you think we can’t?
You know, after seeing that, I think I’ve changed my mind about Ashley. I now see the point that piny and others were making.
I hope, for your sake Sigh, that the absolutely horrible point you made above isn’t the horrible point you seemed to make above.
Because people would be horrified!
Not me, though. And I said, “severely disabled, non-sentient infant.”
If I were convinced the experimentation on this type of infant could save other’s suffering, or millions of folk’s suffering sooner, I would say OK.
It isn’t like I would be happy about it. Morality is tough work.
Would I sacrifice myself to save 10 others? 100? 1000? A million?
Hard to say, since I’ve never been in that position! But I hope I could at some number. And if it got into the “millions” range I am fairly sure I could. But not totally.
If, as I believe, the mentally incapacitated deserve moral consideration (though not perhaps all the rights that a fully functioning adult deserves), it cannot be on account of their reason. I believe that it is because they can suffer pain and experience enjoyment. But that has nothing to do with their being human (well a bit, but being human is not a necessary condition for that capacity).
And, again, this is where you and I disconnect once again. Just because a particular human being may not have the full rationality of a normal human being does not mean that they cease to be human. This stance is in part because, historically, certain groups of people have been judged to be automatically lesser based on a group characteristic (skin color, sex, etc.). So we must decide that humans stand as a group rather than deciding on a case-by-case basis.
As a group, animals are not rational in any way that I have seen effectively demonstrated. A chimpanzee may have the intelligence of a four-year-old, and my cats are pretty analogous to a two-year-old, but they still do not have a sense of the future as humans do. A chimpanzee does not decide what s/he will do tomorrow, much less five years from now. A chimpanzee does not have that revelatory moment that all humans eventually do, of, “One day, I will die.”
Now, I’m not arguing that we will never find another animal that has rationality, or that no other animals will ever develop it. As we continue to study animals and drop our preconceptions, we’re finding out more and more about them that, 30 years ago, we would have thought impossible. A talking gorilla — what an insane idea!
But then that circles back to what responsibility we would have towards animals that have rationality, but still need to be protected from human predation, as gorillas do. We can’t just step back and say, “Well, gorillas are rational beings, so they’ll be able to protect themselves perfectly well from poachers. Bye, now.” So the discovery that another animal has the “human” characteristic of rationality will have its own set of moral dilemmas.
I do, however, believe that I can state pretty firmly that the chicken is not one of the animals that will be discovered to be rational no matter how good they are at playing Tick TacK Toe.
This is of course useless, but you do realize that I pointed out that saying that some loopy author, not an organization as you had claimed (not that it matters), finding common cause between animal rights and the anti-choicers does not automatically infect the animal rights movement with anti-choice cooties, as you tried to insinuate.
People kept bringing up how wrong Amanda was to equate PETA and Operation Rescue. I pointed out a journal (the Feminism and Nonviolence Studies Journal) that had an article making the argument that, if animal rights and pro-life were not yet linked, they should be, and gave reasons why.
If you’re going to argue that journal articles by pro-life organizations that say that they ought to make common cause with the animal rights movement shows that there are no similarities in the belief systems at all, well, I can’t really help you.
Mnemosyne: I argued that above: what makes us “count for so much� is our rationality. We have the ability to make complicated decisions about ourselves and our environment that other animals just do not have.
The problem here is that this is a difference in degree and not kind. In addition, I’d argue that this line of claiming exceptionalism has been used to justify preferential treatment of humans over humans. Carol Adams strongly points out the parallels between the way our culture defines animals, and the way our culture defines women and other minority groups. I’d argue further that the rationalizations that our culture uses to justify violence against animals is not that much difference than our justifications for violence against Iraqis, or military detainees.
Human beings are not granted broad moral protection on the basis of rationality. We automatically protect infants and people with cognitive disorders mild and severe from many forms of abuse and exploitation, while at the same time recognizing that those human beings may not be competent to participate in some forms of human activity. If we use rationality as a benchmark, then logically we must extend such protection to at least some members of other species. It is foolish to say that all infants are entitled to moral and legal protections categorically denied to all non-human primates.
In addition, I’d argue that the level of rationality at which we can no longer take the moral interests of another into account is fairly low. Most mammals can be observed to have negative reactions to pain and suffering, and seek to avoid pain and suffering. To me at least, this makes it fairly clear that inflicting pain and suffering on mammals is highly problematic. And there is another form of exceptionalism involved in the Animal Welfare stance of accepting as routine forms of violence against “livestock” that we would not accept against companion animals that we treat as members of our own family.
I think that much of the shock that comes whenever people suggest a comparison between the moral interests of animals and humans is based on the assumption that we want to lower all humans to the level at which we treat other species.
Argh. My big long comment is being modded, which means it’s time for bed. Night, all.
Me, too. I’m out.
Nice thinking with you all!
And great blog, y’all.
J
CB, I addressed part of the point you bring up (specifically addressing the great apes) in a post to Sigh, but it’s in moderation. You’ll have to check back tomorrow, because I’m too tired to try and summarize it.
Spare me your moral relativism. Just because eco-terrorists have not killed as many people as anti-choice terrorists doesn’t give them a free pass. By using your logic, anti-choice terrorists could be excused for their actions, because they have not killed nearly as many people as AlQaeda.
You’re gonna try to convince me that burning property is not design to terrorize? Please, gimme a damn break. These people are fucking nuts and they need to be stopped. If you don’t like it, talk with the FBI.
I’m a vegetarian. I don’t think animals are as important as people. But I don’t think they are so unimportant we should kill them just to have something tasty, when there are plenty of other things to eat. Neither should we hurt them to make frivolous things like makeup, especially when cruelty-free makeup is easily available. Medical and scientific testing is usually justified I think, though there have been some pointlessly cruel experiments.
www.veganessentials.com
Anyway that’s my 2 cents.
Well, since it’s for my sake, could you explain the absolutely horrible point you think I’m making?
The points I was intending in the bolded sections are:
1) Human beings can deserve different rights depending upon their capacities (i.e. babies don’t have the right to drive).
2) There is a basic set of rights (freedom from torture, killing, and unjustified imprisonment) that all human beings deserve.
3) These rights are deserved not because of our biological particularity nor because of possessing reason but because of sentience (the capacity if experience pleasure and pain).
4). All sentient beings deserve at least the minimal rights in 2. (For example, GAP Thus also all congnitively impaired human beings deserve these rights (and maybe others depending upon capacities).
Trillian: I’m not in the mood to philosophize about moral absolutes and whatnot right now, but just to say that if you don’t like animal research, kindly remove yourself from modern society and live in a cave, where you will never have to partake of modern medicine ever again. Please yourself.
The same argument can be made about many other things that we consider to be bad or less than ideal, but which have been integral and necessary parts of creating our modern society. War, racism, slavery, and sexism come to mind.
Now personally, I’m willing to consider animal research as problematic rather than just categorically wrong.
Sporkey: Do you believe that mentally incapacitated persons should have a vote, or should those with powers of attorney vote cast their votes?
Which is one of the big problems I find with rights language in these discussions. The history of rights involves participation in forms of governmental authority. So it’s sometimes difficult using rights language to distinguish the principle that one should not wantonly cause suffering to other beings, from the principle that law-abiding citizens should be free to cross state lines.
Maybe not as much of a stretch as you might think.By way of illustration: a few years ago, among the more common phrases that could be heard in PETA’s national HQ were “fur bitches” and “fur whores” - nearly the only phrases used to describe people who wore fur. Anyone who pointed that men also wear fur was quickly shut down and derided.
The pervasive sexism and heterosexism coming directly from the top was a major reason a friend of mine left a full-time career with PETA after devoting many years to the organization. She got tired of fighting it from within, tired of being ignored, tired of being belittled.
Just to clear something up–this “Sigh” didn’t say what that “Sigh” said. That post was not written by me. Don’t know how that happened.
Actually, all the rats I (humanely) sacrificed last summer for research into PCB metabolism and carcinogenesis mattered to me. They should matter to everyone. Every animal that has ever been used to contribute to understanding and development of both human and veterinary medicine matters.
I hope this is a late arrival, but: Sweet Jesus, PETA makes principled vegetarians look bad. Not like lesbians ‘made NOW look bad’ in 1978, like NAMBLA makes the gay pride parade look bad.
Don’t let the dumbasses get you down, Trillian. Some of us are deeply grateful for the work you’re doing.
PETA advocates for treating animals like humans, and says it’s wrong to kill rats to find out how to cure leukemia.
OR advocates for treating pregnant women like animals, and says it’s wrong not to let nature take its course with every pregnancy no matter how short or ill-fated.
Whoever wants to make those positions seem dissimilar has a heavy emipirical burden to carry. Rest up, and anon you can impress us with your rhetoric. Not that anyone is likely to be converted to the medicine-free, meat-free, textile-wearing lifestyle, but I’m sure it will be entertaining.
I’m not sure if people splashed fur-wearing women with blood instead of doing so to leather-wearing bikers because they were misogynist… or because they figured the bikers were much more likely to kick their asses.
Although, I do believe PETA members are more likely to just hand out fliers explaining why fur is wrong. It’s just not what one hears about, unless one knows someone who did volunteer work for them.
Sirkowski: You’re gonna try to convince me that burning property is not design to terrorize? Please, gimme a damn break. These people are fucking nuts and they need to be stopped. If you don’t like it, talk with the FBI.
Well, here is a bit of an interesting issue for me. I don’t like ALF and ELF because I come to “animal rights” through non-violence rather than the whole rights language snafu which implies that such actions are sometimes necessary to secure rights. I also feel that the part of the moral responsibility for engaging in direct action means accepting arrest and prosecution for your principle.
On the other hand, the FBI and it’s private predecessor, the Pinkertons, existed largely to protect the interests of dominant political groups. So the definition of “terrorism” employed has included not only violent and potentially violent actions such as arson and bombings, but also non-violent direct action such as sit-ins, marches and picketing. During the 2000 campaign, it was fairly obvious that the left was being defined as “terrorists” simply for showing up on the street.
PhoenixRising: PETA advocates for treating animals like humans, and says it’s wrong to kill rats to find out how to cure leukemia.
OR advocates for treating pregnant women like animals, and says it’s wrong not to let nature take its course with every pregnancy no matter how short or ill-fated.
Whoever wants to make those positions seem dissimilar has a heavy emipirical burden to carry. Rest up, and anon you can impress us with your rhetoric. Not that anyone is likely to be converted to the medicine-free, meat-free, textile-wearing lifestyle, but I’m sure it will be entertaining.
Well, actually it’s just simple logic. Arguing that we should extend moral protections to non-humans does not mean that we should remove moral protections from pregnant women (or people with cognitive disabilities, etc, etc.)
Sigh: Bingo. There is another ground between total abolition and the moral blank check usually invoked as a justification for non-human experimentation.
In addition.
Amanda: Both have a strong, irrational loathing for science.
Well, I don’t know that’s entirely the case. I bailed out of biology over what I felt were two critical issues. First, I recognized that my specialty of plant research would be more likely appropriated by the Monsantos(*) of the world than by sustainable agricultural development. And I couldn’t reconcile my ethics of non-violence with animal experimentation.
I’m still a scientist (psychology), but I have to admit that there is pretty of room for radical and critical examination of how science is funded and performed on the basis of que bono. I’m no longer convinced that science can be given a blank political check on the grounds that everyone benefits.
(*) A company that created the PCB problem a mile out of my back door.
And I must add that I’m not a big fan of PETA and refuse to donate or participate in their campaigns because of the sexism. But the thread has shifted a bit from “PETA is wrong because they harm women” to “PETA is wrong because they advocate for animal rights.”
Fuck You, PETA…
I don’t agree with everything in this episode of Penn Teller’s Bullshit, but it does reveal some uncomfortable factoids about PETA. For the record, I eat meat but try to mostly eat animals raised and slaughtered in the least offensive…
The primary intention surely is to change attitudes. Or are you questioning their sincerity? If the intention is not shock for its own sake, but to use shock for an end, then it is like any other form rhetoric, whether that is a pithy headline, or, a “graphic� photograph in the newspaper.
Yes, in fact, I am questioning their sincerity, about race in particular. Having a group that is overwhelmingly white use the historical oppression of African-Americans to advance their own cause reads to me like one more instance of cultural appropriation: “We don’t actually care about your issues until we can use them to promote the issues that we do care about.”
My other problem is that invoking slavery and the Holocaust is a time-honored way of shutting down a discussion. It immediately puts people on the defensive–which is why I think the “liberal meme that PETA does more harm than good” has some truth.
Finally, as I said earlier, I do think that comparing something that’s undeniably evil, like mass murder and buying and selling human beings, to something that’s much more ethically murky, trivializes the former. PETA is opposed to killing animals in all cases: for food, for their skins and fur, and for medical experimentation. They don’t distinguish between types of animals: is it wrong of me to put out poison for the mice that are running all over my house? What if I let the cat catch them and run them around until they die of fear and exhaustion? Should I even have the cat, since I keep him inside, which is contrary to his cat nature–maybe I should free him, except for the part where he wouldn’t be able to survive without having his human around to provide the Hard-Shelled Food Beasts. It’s not that different from the anti-choicers’ rhetoric about abortion being an “American Holocaust”: something that’s always, entirely wrong, regardless of circumstance. Maybe PETA’s membership believes that. I don’t, and if you try to convince me by bludgeoning me with an emotional appeal, I’m not going to respond positively.
track directly back to the CCF.
The thing is, no matter who the people are reporting it, and no matter what the motives of those people are, they provide oficial papers filed by PETA
showing that PETA euthanized an enormous number of animals. To pretend that PETA’s own admissions in PETA’s own filings aren’t damning because you don’t like the people who point them out to you is really, really stupid.
Ms Kate Jan 28th, 2007 at 1:01 am
Or, one of my favorites, that milking a cow is torture to the animial and extremely painful.
My response: Yeah. That’s why they walk over and start butting their heads into your backside, pushing you toward the milking barn at milking time and kicking up a ruckus/fuss if you don’t drop what you are doing and comply.
My response to your response: Of course they want to be milked, like if you’ve ever breastfed and had your baby go too long between feeds, you’ll feel extremely uncomfortable.
But it’s humans who are impregnating the cows, taking the calves away and milking the cows (impregnating them again while they’re still being milked, and on and on until they’re slaughtered because their bodies have been worn out). It’s humans who have bred cows so that they produce way more milk than they did before we interfered, leading to problems like mastitis (which is why they’re commonly given antibiotics) and painful leg problems.
I’m another vegan who will never support PETA.
Why else would they throw blood on women wearing fur coats but not on bikers wearing leather?
Because maybe they’re crazy, but not so crazy they’ve lost thier instinct for self-preservation. The odds of the fur lady carrying a gun or kicking your ass are probably far lower.
Kind of cowardly, really.
Heh, this thread is awesome. It’s a good thing I’ve very well read up on the issues or else this would probably drive me back to meat-eating. Seriously, watch that video. PETA can suck my left one.
But my post was not an attack on the pro-animal rights argument. I think there are solid, intellectual arguments for improving our treatment of animals. Anyone who argues that animals don’t have consciousness or feeling is missing the point. But so are people who argue against domestication, who don’t realize that from a scientific point of view, domestication is a symbiotic relationship. Both the “wah don’t criticize my meat-eating” and the people who demonize meat-eating to the point where you wonder if they know it’s the way of nature are irritating. We can acknowledge that it’s the way of nature while pressing for more responsible habits.
Molly came to me from the plain old SPCA, who does catch-neuter-release. (And adoption for kittens.) It’s not sexy to do actual hands-on work in animal rescue that actually saves animals, but it’s more fun than you think. I can’t recommend giving your time and energy enough to feral cat programs. The dollars-to-animal-lives ratio makes them far more worth it.
Above all, PETA makes animal lovers look like assholes. They give our enemies ammunition against the very reasonable arguments against meat-eating and against Big Agra. And they use good money to make us look bad.
Wow what a thread. I almost wished i cared enough about this topic to overcome my ADD and read through it all, but i don’t. Just wanted to offer an alternative for those who might be convinced to break with donating money to PETA. It’s called “The Heifer Project” and it’s one of my favorite charities. http://www.heifer.org/
Thanks for this, Amanda. I’ve got some quibbles with your post–I think you grossly overstate the sexism angle, for one thing–but PETA needs to be fuckin’ buried and the earth salted, for the good of the fuzzy li’l critters they’re too busy making goo-goo eyes at to advocate effectively for.
Wow, that sentence construction sucked. Anyway, I’m knee-deep in the animal-welfare biz, and my compatriots and I hate PETA more than we hate Mary Kay. Those ignorant fuckers are against scruffing cats, which is like being pro-auto repair but anti-hydraulic lifts.
I used to think they were useful as a media battering-ram insofar as the unsexy day-to-day work doesn’t garner any press, but they’ve been a net negative on all counts. Fuck Singer and his purity school too–Temple Grandin, omnivore, has done more to alleviate the suffering of animals than all the naked, body-painting vegans in the world combined.
I have one major problem with your plea at the end, and I’m not sure how to phrase it because I don’t want you to update it or scar it with an asterix, but could you maybe (next time it comes up, if it comes up again) drop the no-kill modifier for shelters? I get why people outside the industry think they’re an unalloyed good, but they’re not. “It’s a no-kill shelter” is laymanspeak for “I don’t have to feel guilty about abandoning my pet,” like they’re going to some kind of animal camp with infinite resources and friends to play with instead of a steel hell of emotional starvation (Yes, there are exceptions. Rule-proving ones).
There are things worse than death, and life in a cage with no hope of adoption is one of them (and that’s leaving out the part about how no-kills fill to capacity almost instantly–by their very nature they condemn the adoptable to death while ensuring the continued suffering of the old, infirm, and poorly socialized). A lot of us bust our humps to give the unwanted a second chance, but the sheer volume being what it is, we take great pride in our secondary role as Stygian gondoliers.
And for the record, no, I don’t gravitate toward animals because they never point out how fucking long-winded I am.
Okay, not JUST because of that.
Thanks again.
Sorry folks, but seeing yet more naked chicks and women used as props, when we’ve already got enough of that drek out in the wider world, is alienating as hell. I’m not going to just overlook all of that because PETA does great work and we bitches should know our place.
And if you don’t get why comparing an animal’s situation to slavery is incredibly racist, well. . .you’re beyond hope. PETA managed to cough up an apology after the kerfuffle over trivializing the Shoah. But they still go on to alienate others and tell us to just shut up and bow before the alter of their righteous fucking purity. Bite me, assholes.
This is fuckedd up. Sorry, but Iraqis and homeless people aren’t your personal props to exploit.
How, exactly, is PETA succeeding when it’s alienating the very people it’s trying to reach out to?
“QrazyQat Jan 28th, 2007 at 4:05 am
Since you’re throwing “stupid” around, right back at ya!
Apparently, two volunteers affiliated with one local PETA chapter did something awful, for as yet unclear reasons. That’s about all there is to say about a case that’s been used by the CCF to push their “PETA KILLS” nonsense. As if this was PETAs new national policy statement.
The “PETA KILLS ANIMALS” campaign has been created and stoked up by a fucking PR agency, whose entire purpose for existing is to make an obscene amount of money out of lying to the public. Color me suspicious? Hell, yes!
If you’d like to discuss euthanasia, and why and under what circumstances it’s the only humane choice, then bring it. As someone who has worked for a “No-Kill” shelter, this happens to be a big topic for me.
Until then, wake up and smell the propaganda.
You’re on to something Darkrose with the conversation ending character of some assertions. I happen to think that that’s what happens with these claims of “racism” and “sexism.” The bar for demonstrating that something is sexist is extremely low as the original “argument” posted shows. No one wants to point to actual evidence of prejudiced attitudes, or actual evidence of actual harms caused differentially for one population at the expense of the other. Moral certainties are trotted out and when they are questioned the response is to conclude that the questioner “is without hope” (as one poster put it to save the trouble of defending her/his view). And when the argument founders we appeal to general claims about “historical oppression” and offense and “cultural appropriation.” No one wants to claim that Alice Walker’s preface to Dreaded Comparison is racist or involves some sort of complicity in her own “cultural appropriation” for the purposes of PETA. And no one wants to actually confront the serious arguments of Carol Adams, or Charles Patterson (Eternal Treblinka) or Marjorie Spiegal. It’s so much easier to indulge the moral dudgeon and hurl claims about “sexism,” “racism” and “anti-semitism” to end the conversation that PETA is trying to start.
Ultimately, I think, that I probably hold a different conception of what sexism and racism and anti-semitism involve than those who find it so “obvious” that PETA ads are instances of these things. I look to a disposition, action, or structure that ignores or discounts the interests of a particular group in comparison to another group to define these various -isms. Others claim that any system that involves differential effects (rather than differential consideration of interests) is -ist in the relevant way. I think that that view does not capture my intuitions about discrimination and injustice accurately (nor I think do the majority of Americans). Like the legal system I expect some sort of actual harm or differential treatment before I start throwing around accusations of injustice. It seems to me that many of the posts here do not think that injustice presuppose actual harms, but rather some sort of “feeling” or “reading” of something as sort of offending to someone’s sensibilities. (Though I grant that offense can involve a harm, it is not the case that all offense results from an harm, or a harm that can count as a wrong–if it did then any “offense” at anything would need to be prosecutable).
I doubt we’ll agree on this and I doubt, further, that it will affect the seemingly ravenous desire to dismiss PETA’s views without engaging the arguments.
This is a true story:
Chicago, 1986-ish, the dead of winter. I’m walking by Water Tower Place, a very fancy shopping mall just north of the Loop which contains several very expensive and exclusive furriers. PETA (or some anti-fur group, anyway) is having a demonstration in front of the main entrance. A tiny, emaciated little old granny comes through the revolving doors, walking very carefully on the icy pavement, and wearing a full-length fur that probably doubles her bodyweight, and probably cost more than I made that year, or the year after, or the year after that all added together.
The demonstrators heckle her, and one of them steps forward and tosses a cup of fake blood onto her fur. It startles the old lady and she loses her balance and falls on her bony old kiester. Everyone kinda freezes in place; clearly the fake-blood-tosser hadn’t thought through to this possible consequence of his action.
Nor had he thought about the possibility of what happened next: A greasy, bearded guy wearing biker leathers shouldered his way through the crowd and sucker-punched him on the side of the head. The guy went down like one of those punching bag clowns, but unlike it he didn’t bounce right back up again. The biker proceeded to methodically put the boots to him, kicking him in the ribs, the balls, the behind, pretty much everywhere except for the face. Then he knelt down by the old lady and very carefully helped her back to her feet. Once she was upright he turned and shouldered his way back through the crowd. The whole thing probably took less than two minutes.
That was pretty much the end of that demo.
My *personal* experience with PETA, with no prior knowledge about their ad’s or their tactics, was one of sheer incredulity.
While shopping in Union Square in San Francisco one Friday after Thanksgiving with my then six year old — a huge animal lover — we saw PETA’s giant truck with the giant picture of like a skinned veal calf (or whatever is their bloody fetus equivalent) driving around and around. Then it pulled over right where we were standing. My sensitive six year old took one look at that truck and got hysterical. She was completely distraught yelling, “make it go away!” over and over again.
When I went over to their table with my crying, hysterical daughter in tow to ask them to please move the truck, their *immediate* response was to tell me in front of my daughter, my sister and my nine year old niece, “Fuck you bitch!”
And I can assure you the epithets only got worse from there. One woman tried to be sympathetic, but her comments were lost in the midst of her cohorts screaming obsenities at me. To this day, my daughter gets anxious every time we’re even near downtown San Franscisco. She still remembers. PETA definitely lost a potential future supporter with her.
Those people are totally crazy. I don’t care what they stand for, they are classic DSM Borderline Personality wierdos. They believe they are utterly right, you are utterly wrong, and there’s no discussion. They can behave however they want and it’s all for the cause. They will think nothing of making a six year old cry and then call the mother a bitch for defending said child.
Every vegetarian and animal lover needs to wake up to the fact that this organization run by sick individuals and find better places for your time and activism.
The Jane Goodall Foundation is my vote. PETA can suck it.
Every vegetarian and animal lover needs to wake up to the fact that this organization run by sick individuals and find better places for your time and activism.
Exactly. This isn’t really effective activism, past the initial recruitment of dabblers and the very few hard core who stay with it. This is a side show. Effective activism leads to thoughtful, broad-based examination and change of the larger structures of socieity and asks how we can balance all the needs - and recruit folks from many walks and perspectives along the way.
What is going to prevent more animal and human suffering: moving to enact enough environmental air and water quality legislation that factory farms become financially unsound (something farm communities can get on to once they push past the fearmongering about all being shut down)? Changing the subsidy system so that farmers can actually get paid a fair wage for their crops rather than cost less subsidy or whatever ADM wants to pay? Encouraging proper land use in rural areas that emphasizes agricultural diversity and proper land care?
Or waving animal snuff porn in people’s faces until they become desensitized and annoyed?
BTW, I wasn’t comparing PETA to a terrorist organization. To make that perfectly clear. While anti-choicers often tacitly accept terrorism, most of them are not terrorists. They’re just overdramatic assholes.
Gayle, as for the links going back to food industry sources—that’s *exactly* my point. PETA gave the food industry ammunition and they shot us with it. PETA is a problem for that reason—they give our enemies (food industry) ammunition (a chance to call them out for blatant hypocrisy and grandstanding).
Gayle, can you please explain how it is you eat without “exploiting” animals in some way or feeding the petrochemical beast? I have yet to see an organic farm that doesn’t use manure, and have seen how my great-grandparents farmed their land using minimal pesticides and non-manure fertilizers.
I can’t see how any vegan can claim not to be trapped in the same systems we all are - meaning we should be changing the system here, not preaching at individuals. Perhaps you should enlighten us to your ways?
thanks for this, amanda — I’ve been trying to explain to my parents for years why I’m so anti-PETA (as a mostly-vegan hippie child who can detect any puppy or kitten in a half-mile radius, too.) I think I might send it to them. And then go to the informational meeting for the humane society animal rescue team. (they will turn me away again for not having a driver’s license, but i’ll do what i can!)
Reading about PETA makes me want to go grill a nice, juicy hamburger.
I remember hearing about a woman a year or two ago who was autistic but with high verbal communication ability (she had a Ph.D. in… something, sorry, it’s been a while) who equated the way autistic people and animals think. Which is to say, both have brains that process information visually rather than linguistically (which obviously makes sense for, say, cattle). She was working with factory farms to help make slaughtering processes as humane as possible, essentially by going through the environment and identifying things that freaked her out.
I was really impressed by that; rather than drawing a line in the sand, she was using what resources she had to adapt a situation and improve it as much as possible. It’s not like McDonald’s is realistically going to stop serving beef.
OT: When I first saw “Operation Rescue” in the headline, I momentarily blanked on its focus and instead thought of that stupid (Red} business the Gap has been advertising. I don’t know where my brain is. It was funny, though.
Doesn’t the head of PETA need to take insulin (created from pigs) every day? I seem to remember reading that somewhere.
Ok for me, not for thee….
And when PETA ends up pissing off more people than it is attracting you have to wonder about the use of it.
Do they attack shoe stores? And Wilson Leather stores? The amount of animal skin used for fur coats is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount used for shoes, purses, and leather jackets, I predict.
Feh. I’d rather donate to the ASPCA or one of the Shiba rescue foundations.
wren, you’re thinking of Temple Grandin.
Ms Kate: I can’t see how any vegan can claim not to be trapped in the same systems we all are - meaning we should be changing the system here, not preaching at individuals. Perhaps you should enlighten us to your ways?
Well, most of us don’t make that claim. However, one of the most effective means of “changing the system” includes changing how we engage in the economy.
In addition, because of the economies of feedlots, hog and poultry farms, abstaining from eating meat is a powerful economic lever for influencing the development of cereal and legume farming. I don’t have the exact figures here, but animal feed constitutes more than 50% of both corn and soya production. As much as people like to point to the fact that vegetable crops are also produced using mass farming methods, the environmental footprint of a 1/4 pound of meat is much much larger than a 1/4 pound of beans.
Pastoral cultures were very efficient at converting inedible vegetable calories to edible animal calories. But that was primarily because they were using low density herds on otherwise unarable land. Current volumes of animal product production requires the majority of our cultivated land and water.
Shameless plug follows:
I give money to the very fine local organization linked to below. If you love cats, I suggest that you do the same (or give to your local equivalent, if any).
And you save the baby, of course.
If the choice is between a dog and an rigid ideologue of any stripe, though, I’d have to think twice about that.
http://www.cofc.edu/~campuscats/
Aside from all their abuses and downright disgusting tactics (see “Your Mommy Kills Animals!”) I have a fundamental disagreement with PETA: I’m completely supportive of animal welfare, but not animal ‘rights.’ Eating meat surely isn’t ‘murder,’ but there are many things inherently wrong with factory farming and the meat industry as it functions today.
Looking for a ‘good’ organization can be a little disheartening, though. Plenty of groups are strong when it comes to promoting welfare for the puppies and kitties, but when it comes to livestock… not so much.
Wren, you’re thinking of Temple Grandin. You can listen to an intersting Fresh Air interview with her here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4278538 .
They lost any credibility with me when their members supported the ELF idiots who broke into WSU during Christmas break and turned the tropical environmentally based animals housed in the school of vet medicine loose in the inland Pacific Northwest to freeze to death.
I will never give anything to their organization or listen to anything any of them say without extreme sceptism ever again.
Amanda, this is what you wrote:
Are we supposed to take it with a grain of salt or believe the hype, because you promulgate both here. In fact, I’d say you’re using the CCF propaganda to prop up their own argument, which is fundamentally, purposefully distorted– “PETA routinely kills animals” implies cruel, murderous intent at its worst, and it supports your paragraph header, that PETA doesn’t really care about animals, at best.
Has PETA euthanized animals in the past? Given the fact that PETA rescues animals from dog fighting rings and such, I would guess they have. Animals this damaged are routinely put down by virtually all the major (and most of the minor) animal welfare orgs as they are deemed far too dangerous to adopt out.
The vast majority of animal welfare orgs, including the HSUS, the ASPCA and most of its various SPCA satellites euthanize animals everyday. Everyday. A no-kill society is a wonderful goal, but we are nowhere near it yet. My local “no-kill� rejects all cats over 3 years old simply because so few people want to adopt older animals. The unwanted and abandoned fall on overburdened shelter workers who, once the cages have been filled, have no choice but to euthanize.
Beyond this, all non-profits have to rely on volunteer labor to do ground work. Most volunteers are great people, but some are not. I met some nasty ideologues working for my local animal rescue org and I met some nasty ideologues when I volunteered for the Kerry campaign, too. I met a few people I’d describe as “odd� in both.
It’s blatantly unfair to broad-brush the entirety of a national organization because of the actions of a few. If this tactic is left unchecked, it leaves all activist and non-profits groups vulnerable to the propaganda of PR firms like the CCF.
I don’t give a fuck what your political position is. Women’s bodies are not an appropriate vehicle to achieve your (completely unrelated) political goals.
Period. End stop.
Are you talking to me?
Talking generally, thanks.
Well, that’s just a laugh, considering I’ve never supported the exploitation of women’s bodies for any reason, while you selectively target PETA and give everyone else a pass.
I clearly remember you calling women I tend to agree with “The Sex Police.”
Hypocrite.
Are we supposed to take it with a grain of salt or believe the hype, because you promulgate both here. In fact, I’d say you’re using the CCF propaganda to prop up their own argument, which is fundamentally, purposefully distorted– “PETA routinely kills animals� implies cruel, murderous intent at its worst, and it supports your paragraph header, that PETA doesn’t really care about animals, at best.
They’ve been caught killing animals. That they were caught by a self-interested party doesn’t change the facts.
Charming.
I apologize that my comment had the ill luck of appearing directly after yours. I still wasn’t addressing you.
I will roll my eyes in silence rather than comment further for fear of being outed as a hypocrite by Gayle. Toodles.
(Amanda, I’d like you to know that even though my comment comes after yours I wasn’t addressing you personally. I thought I should make that very, very clear.)
BTW,
I have criticized PETA for their sexist, often overtly misogynistic, ads. Many times. Here, on Feministe and elsewhere. You can go and search for yourself, if you want. Telling me you don’t care what “my fucking political position is,” when that has nothing to do with anything I said, is completely uncalled for.
Lauren,
You said you were addressing me- generally. Just above where you said you didn’t.
And yes roll your eyes, please do. It’s sooo ridiculous to be against right wing PR organizations who target activist groups for profit.
And as I wrote and linked above, this goes way beyond PETA.
Jesus, gayle, get over yourself.
I remember hearing about a woman a year or two ago who was autistic but with high verbal communication ability (she had a Ph.D. in… something, sorry, it’s been a while) who equated the way autistic people and animals think. Which is to say, both have brains that process information visually rather than linguistically (which obviously makes sense for, say, cattle). She was working with factory farms to help make slaughtering processes as humane as possible, essentially by going through the environment and identifying things that freaked her out.
You’re thinking of Temple Grandin.
I don’t have time to read this entire thread, so forgive me if someone has made this point.
PETA makes my brother the hunter think that everyone that has any interest in animal rights or against factory farming is also against hunting. PETA helps to reinforce everything that the NRA tells him about the left, and makes him, a blue collar guy who recently asked me why the Europeans all get so much paid vacation and we in the US do not, vote for Republicans every time. This guy is ripe to be a socialist, let alone a Democrat, but then some nut (usually the same one everytime)writes to his local paper touting the PETA line about hunting and he loses it. My brother is not stupid, he just has limited access and knowledge of politics and the NRA has been good to him, because he can still hunt, so he trusts them when they tell him PETA is the enemy, and then PETA reinforces it.
And for those of you who might be anti-hunting, I say this: If you are a deer, your death is likely to be due to: A) being hit by a car B) starving C) dying of chronic wasting disease (deer equivalent of mad cow disease, caused largely by overpopulation due to lack of predators) D) being eaten by coyotes and wolves in more remote areas, or E) being hunted. Deer in the wild do not grow old and enjoy their grandchildren in their sunset years. Being shot, in my opinion, is one of the more humane ways to go, deer-wise. And yes, my brother eats all of his kill, even the less than clean salmon he takes out of the Great Lakes.
I probably should say more, but I’m just going to leave it at that.
You’re thinking of Temple Grandin.
Dr. Grandin is a consultant to the livestock industry, and while she does wonderful work, I would be very surprised to see PETA applauding her. She’s not a volunteer or a vegetarian.
As for using economic muscle against factory farming, you’re best off putting your money into buying humanely-raised, non-feedlot meat from small producers. Giving up meat will not promote alternative practices.
Mythago — see my comment above at 8:08 pm, quoting from the New Yorker article on Ingrid Newkirk.
zuzu,
You forgot to roll your eyes.
False and false and oh so false.
This is the most tiresome argument in the debate about animal testing, because it is so completely ass-backwards and against basic science.
People, clinical science rests on basic science. Now I know you can find examples of discoveries that went from bench to bedside really rapidly, or evaded animals all together, but even so, 99% of medicine, biology, physiology, ecology relies on using animals and animal products. Cell culture? Fed with serum from cows. Immunology? Critically dependent on antibodies raised in mice, rabbits, chickens, donkeys, goats etc. Physiology? Impossible without tissues from living animals. Pharmacology? Without good cell culture and animal systems we would never be able to measure the effects of drugs safely before using them for human consumption. Oncology? Animal models are again critical on all levels from culture, to understanding angiogenesis to tumor metastasis. Ecology? Do you think scientists in the field capture animals and then put them in MRI machines? Nope. Cell biology? Where do you think we get those cells from? All biology can’t be done in immortalized cancer lines. Neurology? You want to tinker in humans brains to figure out the basics? And those neat implants they’re working on that are controlled directly by the brain - yeah, that started in rats, and one day they’ll be in people. All of these things which are critical to our understanding of biology rest on using animals and animal products, they are inseparable. (Now is when some retard usually suggests we use computers- oy)
Think of it like a pyramid, with all the clinical stuff occupying the very tip. Basic science is necessary, and critical for the clinical science. Many experiments will be negative, yes, but that doesn’t mean they’re a waste either. This anti-basic science view is so short-sighted it just makes me want to stab a fork in my eye. And the basic science is critically dependent on animals.
Something no one outside of biomed sciences appreciates is how many hundreds and thousands of failures must occur before we come up with something correct. How much basic science is about elimination of possibilities, painful and excruciating investigations that produce incredible amounts of negative data before you find that needle in a haystack that is the positive data going into your paper. Science is more about failure and dealing and learning from it than it is about success.
So yes, if you don’t want animal research, go live in a cave. It’s not like comparing Iraq to use for oil at all, not only is it not an apt analogy, but there’s about a billion better ways to get energy than using oil or invading countries. Biomedical science is simply not possible without animals on every single level. Anyone who makes the counter argument is not a biomed scientist. Anyone who argues that experimentation can be done entirely on humans is mad. Anyone who disparages animal models as a learning tool has never used one (and doesn’t seem to understand that we also realize their imperfections). Anyone who says science that doesn’t immediately cure a disease is a waste doesn’t get how science works and how we learn about how diseases work.
Sorry for the absolutes, but these arguments are so tiresome. Removal of animals from science would be the end of serious biological science. Finally, as far as scientists working with animals not being terrorized by animal rights activists? Go to Oxford. Or hell, on any university campus just try to find the vivarium. It’s usually the most secure building (and nondescript) on any campus because they’re concerned about security and threats. Scientists don’t even feel safe describing what they do because people have such a poor concept of how dependent the medicines they love so much are dependent on animal research and because they think basic science has no worth or isn’t necessary. The fools.
mythago: As for using economic muscle against factory farming, you’re best off putting your money into buying humanely-raised, non-feedlot meat from small producers. Giving up meat will not promote alternative practices.
Why did I suspect that this fallacy would make an appearance?
Vegetarians can support small food, slow food, and local food as well.
Regardless of whether your money goes toward traditionally-farmed meat or vegan/vegetarian alternatives, it’s not making its way to factory farms.
While I agree that “humane” meat is a viable option, it’s considerably difficult to find and verify a source. Most of the meat my brother eats comes from Whole Foods, which claims to have “the highest standards” and to “support humane living conditions,” but who knows what that really means from a practical standpoint? Are the animals’ living quarters larger? Do they provide frequent outdoor/indoor access? Do their slaughterhouses have a lower rate of consciousness on the bleeding racks? I don’t know, because they don’t tell me. They just claim to be “humane.”
I am so sorry Brian O’Connor quit blogging, but I am grateful for him leaving his blog archives up so you can all go and dig through the long history of PeTA nastiness: Animal Crackers.
I’ve been a vegetarian since I was 4 or 5. I’m extremely sympathetic towards arguements about treating animals more ethically. But I will never give a dime towards PETA because they have repeatedly and publicly condemned fat people. They’ve repeatedly based ad campaigns around belittling and stigmatizing fat people because they like to think of fat as a shorthand for meat-eater. They’ve promoted their mission not on its ethical merits, but by playing to fear-of-fat, especially among young women. I find anyone promoting fat stigmatization to be reprehensible, but it is especially awful coming from PETA. There are plenty of other good reasons to oppose PETA, and I don’t doubt I would have gladly found another reason if I wasn’t fat. But I am. And PETA says that makes me less deserving of respect. That’s reason enough for me.
As well, humane meat farming practices misses the point that for many of us, vegetarianism isn’t just about agricultural economics, but also about violence and cruelty to animals.
And talking about agricultural economics, such practices are unlikely to support the current consumption of 3-4 servings per person per day.
PETA helps to reinforce everything that the NRA tells him about the left, and makes him, a blue collar guy who recently asked me why the Europeans all get so much paid vacation and we in the US do not, vote for Republicans every time.
Sorry, but I’m not buying that. Assuming your brother now knows the Republicans are responsible for his not getting paid vacation, if he still votes for them, it’s not PETA’s fault. If you’re getting your information about the left from the NRA in the first place, they’re probably telling you everything you want to hear. The Democrats already think they have to bend over backwards to appeal to misogynists and homobigots in order to get votes. Not only are they spineless for doing that, they’re also wrong, because it doesn’t work. I don’t think PETA’s campaigns are defensible, but I’m not blaming them for people voting for murderous sociopaths.
Well, so your claim is “it is not the case that a great deal of animal research is negative” (hmm but you cede the point in the paragraph below just alter its significance). I am aware of the distinction between basic science and clinical/therapeutic work. My only claim is that much of animal research does not have as its direct consequence valuable therapies (this doesn’t mean that it doesn’t contribute, but the sweeping argument “if you question animal research you don’t want little bobby to be cured of cancer” are facile and confused). So, unless you reject the claim that much animal research does not lead immediately to therapies (whatever its other justifications), I will strike the first “false.”
Second, “false”–if you think this is false then you apparently believe that “no therapies can be developed without animal testing.” Now in one sense you could actually be right since the FDA requires testing on animals prior to clinical trials. But this is a regulatory requirement and as we know penicillin was discovered to be safe therapy despite the animal testing and therefore could have been discovered without it. So your second false falls alongside the first one.
And presumably your third “oh so false” claim is directed to me distinction between criticizing a practice and not rejecting its poisoned fruits. Cohen gives a better version of this claim in one of his attacks on Tom Regan–he presents the scenario of using snake anti-venom to save the life of a family member. If the anti-venom is used another animal will be destroyed to make more of it. Regan concludes that on his view he should not use the anti-venom. But this is an importantly different case than my use of aspirin or claritin-d. Whether I use it or not will not affect future animal testing. So it does not follow that a consistent moral opponent to unnecessary and morally unjustifiable cases of animal research need forego modern society and live in a cave. As so often in this thread we run into ignoration elenchi and red herring argument.
Except perhaps those biomedical researchers who do make this counter argument! There is a growing literature in peer reviewed professsional journals discussing the scientific problems (not the moral one’s of course!) with the use of animal models in almost each and every one of the areas of biomedical research you mention (I’ll just point out that the counter-argument to the claim “Biomedical res. is not possible without use of animals on every level” is merely “Biomedical res. is possible without the use of animals on EVERY LEVEL” (i.e. some animal uses could be done without). This isn’t to say that they advise rejecting the use of animal models, but your argument that no biomedical researchers questions or at least “problematizes” the scientific validity of the use of animal models would not seem to be born out by the literature.
Yes, we need a better conversation about the use of animals in research. It is in the interest of both scientists and those who care about ethics and animals. Scientists have done a very bad job explaining the justification, there is a sort of arrogance that has made people suspicious of their intentions and their judgments. Unfortunately the conversation is neither advanced by the sort of “argument” (”we know what we’re doing, we’re SCIENTISTS, and if you don’t agree then you hate SCIENCE”) that you flirt with throughout your reply, nor, I think, by the abolitionist position of Regan and PETA. It would require not talking in absolute terms and in generalities, nor with dismissive arrogance and increased secrecy.
In addition, because of the economies of feedlots, hog and poultry farms, abstaining from eating meat is a powerful economic lever for influencing the development of cereal and legume farming.
What is more likely to push that economic lever (if you believe it is a matter of levers and not a much more chaos-based process): a few people who do the work to become “abstainers” or a much more broad-based reduction of meat consumption by a much larger number of people?
Am I reading CBrachyrhynchos right? Because humane farming doesn’t miss that point at all.
I think the intended point is that killing and eating animals is always violent and cruel, whether or not it’s done humanely.
“Or, one of my favorites, that milking a cow is torture to the animial and extremely painful.”
well no, not on a regular ole farm. but the huge dairy industry, thats another story. on the ginormous dairy farms, they do pump the cows full of chemicals and milk them till there udders bleed…not to mention immediatly taking away the calf after its born for slaughter…dairy is fucked up.
but yea, peta sucks
Well, js, that’s true, except for the part about how “humane” and “cruel” are antonyms.
Having worked in a large scale animal research lab (I also eat meat and wear leather - stone me, whatever), I can tell you that releasing almost any animal from one of these facilities is a guaranteed death sentence. Most are bred to be disease free and upon contact with the outside world, they will be exposed to some mouse, rat or hamster germs and will die.
And I have to say that hunting is a way out of the corporate agri-business large scale farming mess. I know it’s not an opportunity most people have, but I feel lucky that I can have some of the best organic meat on earth because of my proximity to elk. I really wish people better understood the value of their food (plant and animal) so that small scale farms were more prevalent and successful.
Intresting how the two types of posts that get the most response are 1) porn and 2) Peta. Food and sex tough some nerves I guess.
Oh, and PETA is a freakin cult and I second the vote for The Heifer Project� http://www.heifer.org/
Well, js, that’s true, except for the part about how “humane� and “cruel� are antonyms.
Then you do understand CBrachyrhynchos’s point that “humane” meat farming misses the point of avoiding animal cruelty.
Not that I’m defending this point, to be sure.
Unless you were saying that “humane” and “cruel” aren’t antonyms, in which case I agree with you.
I don’t know gayle from adam, but arguments about her personal choices being hypocritical because they might stem from some sort of animal exploitation are BS and exactly the same sort of argument placed on those that know global warming is a problem, i.e. “if Al Gore cares about global warming so much, why does he ever get on a plane.”
It is just not a fair argument.
PETA is extreme, and they do more than enough to hang themselves, but we don’t need to use everything and the kitchen sink against them, and if certain examples are actually BS, why do we need to go that far?
The devil’s advocate would say “why should PETA amoeliorate their message if that is what they actually believe, just as radfems should not make their message more palatable because of some utilitarian argument about small goals versus larger, revolutionary ones.”
Lauren:
I don’t give a fuck what your political position is. Women’s bodies are not an appropriate vehicle to achieve your (completely unrelated) political goals.
I went over and watched the PETA spot and I also felt it was pretty exploitive.
Let’s switch it around and turn this into a spot for Privatizing Social Security.
I can see it now a very attractive Young Blonde Republican(TM) speaks the words, “We think it is important to eliminate Social Security, no one else agrees so so I am going to take off my clothes while reading a political manifesto. At least that way you might listen to my completely unrelated views.”
As for PETA I have always thought that they do more harm than good. They are the Westboro Baptist Church of the left. They don’t create converts they simply polarize the debate.
Pinko Punko: Lauren WASN’T ADDRESSING GAYLE. The “you” was the general “you,” fer Pete’s sake. Have we not heard of cross-posting?
As for the arguments that buying organically/humanely-raised meat is more effective in hurting factory farms than not eating meat: how does that work, exactly? In both cases, the factory farms aren’t getting the money because the market is reduced by one. What buying humanely-raised meat does, however, is show mass meat producers that consumers who would otherwise be buying their products are choosing other options. At some point, either option — buying better meat or not buying any at all — are going to have some effect on the industry in that its sales go down (the bread industry experienced this when the Atkins craze got going).
What choosing the more humanely-raised meat will do is put pressure on the industry to change, because it shows them that consumers will spend money on meat if it fulfills certain criteria.
Sigh:
That’s quite different than your statement quoted, which was:
It is true that most animal research does not have a direct consequence on a therapy, but that is a world apart from it being “entirely negative�. So are you wanting to argue the latter obvious or the former absurd?
Bad, bad example. Penicillin was found to be a safe therapy because there was no regulation period. What would have been equivalent to its phase one clinical trial had a 50% success rate and a 50% fatality rate (n=2, not the best sample size, but it’s what happened). Those numbers would have shelved penicillin immediately today, and did give them some pause then. But they just kept on using it anyways, because why the hell not, it could work, maybe. It turns out it did. Do you really want to take that risk today? Just go straight to human testing and if the drug has a 80% lethality rate just suck it up? No thanks.
Wrong still. It is the same economics as the conversation about where to buy meat. You pay for something that came out of a specific process; you are validating that process and helping to insure that it continues baring it being such down via some other mechanism. So your usage does contribute to future deaths of animals.
You mischaracterize the arguments they are making. They do bring up the problems with relying upon animal models as much as we do. They do not advocate ceasing to use such models. If you know of any that actual do, cite.
It is just not a fair argument.
Exactly. My point wasn’t to say the megavegans here are hypocrites. My point is that they are every bit as much snared in a system of animal abuse as we all are.
Animals are an integral part of an organic food producing system. You don’t have to eat them or their eggs and milk, but you need them UNLESS you use artificial products to replace them.
My point is that you can never be free of one system without toggling to the other. You cannot declare yourself morally superior or even clean or not responsible for the larger mess if you can’t get out of the game. Therefore, the game must be changed to minimize the harms, and that will only come about when those whose dollars drive that game are permitted to make choices or take their dollars out of the system.
Most people will never even consider veganism as a lifestyle. Many people might consider eating less meat and buying that meat from more controlled sources. They won’t do this because of PETA’s ridiculous side show of animal horrors. They will do it if foodie magazine editors and Rachael Rays and the larger food promotion industry from Better Homes and Gardens on up starts to showcase vegetarian and meat lite dishes as a matter of style, flare, and luxury.
Well, that’s just a laugh, considering I’ve never supported the exploitation of women’s bodies for any reason, while you selectively target PETA and give everyone else a pass.
Who did Lauren give a free pass to? Who is this “everyone else,” Gayle? I’ve read her blogs and her comments pretty damn regularly for several years now, and I’ve never seen her give “everyone else” except PETA a free pass for this shit. In fact, I recall a thread or two where a couple of asshats implied she was a nasty, mean, repressive feminist for not praising all porn all the time.
If you don’t support the exploitation of women’s bodies, why are you trashing women who don’t like it when PETA engages in it?
F*** PETA…
No, seriously, I literally mean that you should go right now and have sexual congress with them. Because that’s apparently what they want you to do. Be warned: The link is most definitely not, even remotely, safe fort work. So,……
Ms Kate: What is more likely to push that economic lever (if you believe it is a matter of levers and not a much more chaos-based process): a few people who do the work to become “abstainers� or a much more broad-based reduction of meat consumption by a much larger number of people?
Well, i feel there are two very different levels of activism going on. For me, (and just for me) I find that professing non-violence as a way of life is incompatible with consuming the products of animal slaughter. It is hard for me to say that the death penalty is a moral wrong, and accept chicken kiev as a moral good. In both cases I’m far removed from the actual violence that takes place. And in both cases claims are made that such violence is for my benefit.
And it seems that you are making a false dichotomy here. I was not aware that vegans, vegetarians, and omnis who reduce their meat intake were in competition with each other. Certainly I feel that the world would be a better place if an ethos of non-violence were more widely adopted, but I don’t expect that to happen.
My point is that you can never be free of one system without toggling to the other. You cannot declare yourself morally superior or even clean or not responsible for the larger mess if you can’t get out of the game. Therefore, the game must be changed to minimize the harms, and that will only come about when those whose dollars drive that game are permitted to make choices or take their dollars out of the system.
Well, again. I don’t know of many who make the claim that they are completely free of the system. And I’m having a hard time understanding why you seem to be appealing to the need for inclusion from “many walks and perspectives” while at the same time spending a lot of energy attacking moral and ethical vegetarians and vegans for making their own choices with their own dollars, based on their own moral and ethical beliefs?
To my ears, this sounds like yet another iteration of the “radicals are bad” idea that keeps spinning around progressive politics on many fronts including nonviolence, feminism, and gay rights. Which is to a large degree where I think the PETA discussions end up. It’s not that PETA is bad because its sexism and racism. Ultimately, the criticisms of PETA drift towards a criticism of animal rights and related philosophical positions. And it astounds me how progressives will flip over backwards to disown their more radical allies for the sake of marginal political approval.
Clarke: Well, my personal perspective is that humane farming that includes animal slaughter is an oxymoron. It might be better than most of the factory farm practices, but there is that tricky problem of the slaughterhouse at the end of life for most.
OK thanks for the clarification. I’ll take the claim in the epexegetic clause which explicates the sense that I sloppily formulated in the first clause.
Well so it’s not such a bad example. In fact, it shows exactly what I said it shows. You have changed the question from whether we can discover medical therapies without the use of animals to the question whether it is prudent to attempt to do so. My example was only one among many that show that your assertion of scientific impossibility is overstated at best.
No. That moral principle is absurdly broad. To purchase meat is to order another corpse. To purchase aspirin is not. One might have a view that one is morally responsible for all of the actions that enabled one to purchase a particular medicine, but there is no reason to accept such a principle without argument. Certainly vegetarianism does not need to rest on such a principle.
Well, since that is almost exactly how I described those arguments, I don’t think you want to accuse me of mischaracterizing. I pointed out quite clearly that these sources do not conclude to generalized rejection of animal models (even when they reveal that for example some toxicology experiments have a roughly 50/50 chance of predicting effects of drugs in human beings). My point is that there is a greater recognition of the scientific flaws of the animal model and a growing documentation of its failures, based on our increased understanding of the diversity of biochemical systems. That is, some biomedical researchers have argued that some animal models do not produce reliable results in various forms of biomedical research. A claim you seemed to deny.
Of course, the important thing is that your claim reveals a basic ideological commitment to the animal model in biomedical research. To question it requires excommunication. (Just like dissection. Despite the evidence that alternative learning methods are every bit as successful (even in Veterinary school!) the “community” rejects you if you question the need to cut up another body for “science.”–sorry, digression). “You are not a biomedical scientist, if you ask the wrong the sorts of questions or criticize our accepted methods.” Even if I pointed to the handful of researchers or clinical practitioners who have come to believe that the research model is seriously flawed, you would probably reject them as evidence, since by definition biomedical researchers must be committed to the animal model. And I would guess that you would reject (because they don’t “understand” biomedical science) the philosophers of science and other theoreticians who have exposed the illogicality at the heart of many of the claims for the animal model. So I will leave it there unless you’d like references.
[…] Amanda Marcotte takes on PETA. […]
Sigh: Quitter made a much more eloquent and persuasive argument for the use of animls in medical research than I ever could. However, I feel that I must point out that many toxicologists and biomedical researchers are constantly attempting to develop and implement new in silico research methods that either cut down on or eliminate the use of experimental animals. Metabolomics is a nascent field right now, but scientists are making strides in understanding how to accurately model pharmacokinetic behaviors of drugs in humans so they can drastically cut down on the quantity of animals used in testing. Of course, this approach may never fully be capable of modelling the intricate and extremely complex interindividual differences in actual organisms, so animal testing during clinical development/biotransformation analysis may always be necessary. Just sayin’.
Personal experience with PETA spokesperson on campus 2 years ago:
Dude (after mentioning to him that I was a biology student): “I f*cking hate you science people, you cut rat heads off (?) for testing!!”
I f*cking hate people who spread disinformation about controversial issues.
I was under the impression that the argument changed to “well, veg(atari)ans, get off your high horse because even your restricted eating cannot escape this system” because pro-PETA people were throwing around a great deal of “If you don’t like PETA, you don’t really want to save the animals! Their crappy, offensive activist tactics are always justified because they may cause some social change! Being anti-PETA is being anti-animal!”
That kind of argument successfully alienates people who want to see a net reduction in the harm done to animals, but are not free or willing to a) make consumption choices approved by PETA, i.e complete veganism, or b) support an organisation that uses blatant sexist & racist advertising to advance their cause.
There are people, quite a few people on this blog alone, who see that a reduction in the harm to animals is not worth an increase in the harm done to human women. Because this is a feminist blog, the argument that objectifying women and the rampant use of women’s bodies to sell products & ideologies actively harms women has a fair bit of currency. So we see that PETA’s activist tactics of choice may save (some) animals, but they harm (many) women, and most of us, no matter how much we want to reduce the pain & suffering of animals, are deeply opposed to that exchange.
I haven’t noticed Ms Kate, or indeed anyone, saying that all veg(atari)ans hypocriticial: we’re saying that claiming that one form of pro-animal activism, particularly one based around eating (an activity everyone has to do to survive), is morally superior to another is not necessarily the most ideal way to reduce the net harm done to living things- which is surely the goal we have in common.
Ms Kate: “Therefore, the game must be changed to minimize the harms, and that will only come about when those whose dollars drive that game are permitted to make choices or take their dollars out of the system.”"
Uhh…what Gayle and Sigh said.
It’s not that PETA is bad because its sexism and racism.
Actually, it is that PETA is bad because of its sexism and racism. What is so hard to understand about that? The discussion of whether sexist and racist tactics are effective is a rebuttal to the PETA activist’s claims that it’s OK because the net result is less dead animals–the end justifies the means.
On factory farming, if you are arguing that animals should never be killed for meat, that’s fine, but that is a very different argument than “Don’t eat meat because the methods of raising animals and then slaughtering them are cruel.” Stopping cruel livestock practices is better done by supporting humane livestock producers, because you are economically pressuring their competitors to change their ways. Meat producers use the cruel methods because they’re perceived to be cheaper and result in higher profits, not because they enjoy torturing cows. Giving up meat is not going to make any company say “Okay, we’ll be nicer to the cows if you promise to buy more hamburger”.
The other thing is if we ever want to get biodiesel really off the ground, you’re gonna have to eat meat.
The main raw material going into biodiesel is soybean oil, which at the moment is generated as a by-product of crushing soybeans into cattle, pig, and chicken feed. 80% of a soybean can be used as feed, 20% is soybean oil (roughly).
At present, we’re building the capacity for a lot of biodiesel production. Problem is getting the feedstock….
OMG, I just told my dad yesterday afternoon how “fundamentalism of any sort pretty much tuns people into assholes.” And I illustrated by point by comparing PETA to rabid pro-lifers, how they prefer making the most shockingly bloody, sensationalistic arguments they can rather than actually engaging in dialogue.
I feel so vindicated to come here and see this.
View from Down Under:
Most of the reports I’ve heard about PETA have been negative. I’ve heard about them being involved with the release of a group of mink from a mink farm in the UK (releasing a non-native predator into an ecosystem which isn’t designed to cope with it). I’ve heard about their killing of animals collected from animal shelters in the US. I’ve heard about them getting all hysterical about a bit of research into the biological origins of sexual preference, because “it could be broadened to humans”. I’ve also run into their campaign to get the entire Australian wool industry boycotted because Australian sheep farmers practice mulesing to prevent fly strike. As an Australian, I found that one a bit insulting, since it appeared they hadn’t even gone as far as to do the basic research into the practice - things like why it’s done, how widespread the practice is, whether there’s any cost-equivalent alternative (a big factor here - farming is marginal at best, and the majority of the country is drought-stricken) etc etc. No discussion whatsoever, just a demand that the entire industry be boycotted.
I’ve done my own research into PETA, and what I’ve read doesn’t impress me. They come across as being much more interested in gaining publicity for themselves as an organisation than they are in actually making a difference to the situation of any animal other than the individual PETA member.
There are better ways of achieving their goal. If the aims of PETA are to improve the welfare of animals world-wide, they’re certainly going about it in a rather ineffective manner. I’ll give to the Australian Nationalist Movement long before I give to PETA, and I’m more likely to give to the RSPCA than either of them.
mythago: Actually, it is that PETA is bad because of its sexism and racism. What is so hard to understand about that? The discussion of whether sexist and racist tactics are effective is a rebuttal to the PETA activist’s claims that it’s OK because the net result is less dead animals–the end justifies the means.
But, these threads never stay at PETA’s sexism and racism. They always seem to mutate towards the evils of ethical animal rights and vegetarianism in contrast to, the kinds of people who are willing to do meatless mondays. I get a bit disappointed when these discussions turn into a bunch of people waving a shaky finger in my direction and saying, “but I’m not one of those animal rights nutjobs.
If the problem is the sexism and racism, stick to the sexism and racism.
On factory farming, if you are arguing that animals should never be killed for meat, that’s fine, but that is a very different argument than “Don’t eat meat because the methods of raising animals and then slaughtering them are cruel.�
Except that it’s pretty hard to argue that the process of killing an animal for meat is not cruel. I don’t know who you are quoting here, since I’m pretty certain i didn’t say that, and I’ve been explicitly clear as to my ethical position throughout.
Stopping cruel livestock practices is better done by supporting humane livestock producers, because you are economically pressuring their competitors to change their ways. Meat producers use the cruel methods because they’re perceived to be cheaper and result in higher profits, not because they enjoy torturing cows. Giving up meat is not going to make any company say “Okay, we’ll be nicer to the cows if you promise to buy more hamburger�.
I wasn’t aware that this was a competition. I’d just point out that vegetarians are changing the market by:
1: Promoting better labeling of animal by-products.
2: Building a market for cruelty/slaughter-free products, including recycled products.
3: Forcing traditional products to compete for shelf space and attention on those ethical issues.
4: Raising the overall visibility of animal rights and animal welfare issues.
Of course, this is an empirical claim, and I doubt the economic theory underlying the claim because I see “humane” farming as a drop in the bucket. But I’m not an economist and will be happy to agree to disagree simply because I don’t have the research chops or time to evaluate this claim.
Sigh:
First, I was not the one making that assertion. And I did change the question, because determining whether we should do something or not based upon it being possible is an empty argument. Penicillin is a bad example as I pointed out because it had very poor results initially. To argue otherwise shows an ignorance of our current process of therapy development and why we have that process.
Presuming aspirin is a stand in to a modern drug, they function similarly. When you buy the steak or the bottle of medicine, whatever has been killed has been killed. If the past is simply the past then you can enjoy a steak by the same logic you enjoy your meds. Have whatever principles you like, but if you’re going to have double standards when chiding others, expect to be called on them.
But I do. To be fair you mischaracterize and then switch the question as it were and offer your qualifications. I should not have choosen to focus on your switch which wasn’t as relevant, that is animal models. So I’ll go back and once again point out quitter’s original point, which is that animals are necessary for every level of biomed research. That goes far beyond simply using animal modes, which quitter went into some detail of already. And I’m still waiting for the cites of those articles calling for the cessation animal models in even a particular area.
Your disdain of science is showing a bit. Come up with something better than animal models and they’ll go out of style in no time. Simply criticize without offering a better alternative and you shouldn’t be surprised that people aren’t falling over themselves to meet your standards. I won’t deny that there are some ideologues, but by and large researches are of a more practical nature. And in case my previous two requests weren’t enough to clue you in, yes I would like references. Then I can accept or dismiss them on their own merits instead of your hand waving.
Thanks for a sane, fact-based comment, quitter. With you 100%.
Gayle, Lauren wasn’t talking to YOU generally; she was speaking generally. With the length of this thread and the timing of your posts, it’s a pretty sure thing she hadn’t seen yours. It’s not all about you.
I keep seeing the “End justify the Means” excuse PETA trots out to justify their sexist, racist, fat bigoted, etc advertising. Its a very common line from them. But, we see here on this thread that their “means” disgust and offend many people who could be allies. Many turn from PETA’s goals BECAUSE of those “means”. So it seems to me that their excuse for inexcusable promotional tactics doesn’t even hold up to its own unfair standard. The “end” is genuinely being harmed by the “means”. It is to PETA’s significant shame that they have failed to grasp this. Their “means” are counterproductive in themselves.
From Trillian upstream a bit:
I am sorry to say I have seen exactly this happen. I had an interview once with the professor who ran the marijuana research lab at the University of Mississippi. It’s a government-funded lab, devoted AIUI to running the same experiments over and over, hoping that this time they’ll be able to show some terrible negative health consequence to toking up.
Anyway, the interview was a walk-and-talk and the prof took me into the rat room where the day’s experiment involved injecting a rat with THC, waiting a set length of time, then killing the rat and preserving the brain for examination. Killing was accomplished with a rat guillotine. It looked like a cross between your elementary-school art teacher’s paper cutter and a cigar trimmer. Stoned rat went in - chomp! Then the good doctor peeled the skull off with a pair of heavy tweezers and tossed the brain into a cooler full of dry ice. He did about half a dozen like that while we talked.
Now, that was bad research from bad motives whose ultimate goal was less scientific advancement than keeping Ole Miss securely latched to the government Drug Warrior tit. It’s the kind of thing that, in a political environment less polluted by the specious claims that all animal testing is worthless or dispensable, could easily be winnowed out by an ethics board. Every stupid, tendentious, inflammatory, or just-plain-false PETA press release or publicity stunt makes that less achievable.
Speaking of the latter and Oxford, Mississippi, that’s the same place where the local PETArds demonstrated in front of the courthouse where a couple of local fratboys were being tried after getting caught fucking a calf. PETA demanded the misdemeanor charges be upgraded to felonies to reflect the terrible trauma, pain and suffering of rape that the calf had endured. None of them had enough knowledge of bovine anatomy to realize that it was unlikely the calf even noticed something the size of a fratboy penis. It was pretty much a perfect storm of stupidity, managing to discredit anti-rape activism, animal-rights activism, and activism in general all at once.
I actually follow this pretty carefully. Nature last month had a big issue with about 5 articles on animal use ethics. I blogged on it if people want some snips of the articles as nature is subscription. Guess what the found?
So, the data is in, and as usual, the ARA is full of shit. You distract, as I knew you would, with a single example of a drug that bypassed animal testing. You mischaracterized my arguments, ignored that I acknowledged problems with animal models but made the point that that is a simplification.
I really find that Amanda is being proven right here. ARAs have a disdain for science. Why else do you think I’m advocating for using animals in research? You think I just like killing mice? I don’t. You think we wouldn’t use alternatives if they were there? Read the nature articles, we would. You think we aren’t constantly looking for alternatives? We are.
You’re arguments are a joke. I’m done. (my name is quitter after all)
Wow! I don’t have time to read through all the bickering, so I’m sure I’m missing some well-reasoned arguments in the middle here. But here’s why I don’t give to PETA:
I’d rather support animal welfare than animal rights.
It’s a hierarchy of needs thing. As long as treatment of animals is inhumane, I will be giving to groups that work to pressure the humans responsible for inhumane treatment (big pork, big dairy, puppy mills, the fur and leather industries) in effective ways. I don’t care if the pigs and cows and puppies have free will and the “right” to be free and unfed by humans, but I do care whether they are kept and cared for humanely, even in slaughter.
P.S. I’m not a vegetarian, but I don’t eat feedlot beef or any pork. I put that under the category of “trying.”
After reading most (there are already 200 at this point) comments above, I’d just like to say that I think that People for the Eating of Tasty Animals is a fine orginization that I am proud to be a part of.
Mild-mannered vegan here. I’m going to bypass the PETA issues for a moment and address Amanda’s suggestion to donate to no-kill shelters and trap-neuter-release programs instead.
There’s nothing wrong with that. But (as someone who worked in the shelter “business” for 20+ years) I do want to caution animal lovers against assuming that a “no-kill” organization is always the ideal. In my area, we’ve got a huge county shelter that’s overcrowded and underfunded. They’ve got a hard-working, dedicated staff who could really, really use some donations to help increase their adoption rate and improve their facility.
But they don’t get much, because everybody’s busy donating to the no-kill shelters. One of our best-known local “no-kills” currently has several dogs that have been living in cages for seven years with no realistic hope of adoption. (In my experience, even if they were adopted at this point, they would have a very rough time adjusting to life outside a kennel.) Because the staff there refuses to acknowledge the unadoptability of some of their animals and humanely euthanize them, they never seem to have any room to take in new animals. When people take their pets there to try to relinquish them (for legitimate or idiotic reasons), they’re told “Sorry, we’re full….try the county shelter.”
I’m not saying that there aren’t Good and Bad shelters in this world—only that the “no-kill” claim is no guarantee that a shelter is virtuous, and a higher euthanasia rate is no guarantee that a shelter isn’t doing its best and needing your help. The sad reality is that at this time, we are still living in a society that has more domestic animals than it has homes for those animals. Until that’s no longer the case, “no-kill” often simply means “let somebody else kill.”
As for TNR programs, they can be great in the right areas—specifically, in places where there is an appropriate, abundant food source for ferals, or a community willing to keep them fed. Our shelter ultimately—with great difficulty—found that our vicinity couldn’t meet those requirements, and most ferals were dying unpleasant deaths from malnutrition, car accidents, or predation. We had volunteers work with the relatively docile semi-ferals until they could be adopted, and we humanely and peacefully euthanized others.
None of them had enough knowledge of bovine anatomy to realize that it was unlikely the calf even noticed something the size of a fratboy penis.
Funniest post of the week.
Lizard, thank you for that informative post.
Is it really counter-propaganda?…
As a follow-up on the whole PETA brouhaha, my astute commenter oneproudaardvark notices that the SOTU-farce ad campaign by PETA is strangely coinciding with the beginning of the trial against PETA for butchering dogs in the back of the truck……
Well, I’m giving up on most of this. The “fact based” reply is simply dismissal by assertion of authority and changing of the terms of the conversation. I’m sure you are able to search relevant databases and are able to discover the same sources I have collected. Though I don’t think it probably matters, since an opinion poll rather than argument is what you find persuasive.
The trouble is that the logic of science based on animal models is potentially flawed in a range of uses to which that model is currently put. You can just reject that claim by appeal to the opinions of practicing scientists, but that isn’t regretably an argument–we would need to know how those scientists explain the relevant logical disconnection of evidence and conclusion. I don’t obviously deny that the vast majority of people believe that using animal models is essential for biomedical research. Nor that the vast majority of people doing the research believe this. But, that isn’t the same thing as saying that they have good reason to believe this.
The logical problem rests on the nature of causal analogical arguments. The clearest formulation of this argument is in “Brute Science” (Lafollette and Shanks), I think.
Let’s just take two examples from the literature dealing with carcinogenesis. Let’s say we want to determine whether compound X is carcinogenetic in human beings. We begin with, let’s say, a standard bioassay using rats and mice of a statistically suitable number and exposing them to the maximum tolerated doses for their lives. We then inspect their corpses for pathologies.
Let’s assume that it shows significant increases in the frequency of a particular pathology relative to our control group. Have we discovered anything about our original question concerning human carcinogenesis? Not yet.
In order to argue further we need to make the analogical argument that, assuming biochemically similar systems and causes, it is likely that this compound is carcinogenic in human beings. But do we have evidence of this? Well when we study the cross-species correlations of carcinogenesis we find disappointing results. For example, there is evidence that in some cases the predictive value of trans-species bioassays for carcinogenesis is roughly 50%.
Mutagenesis 1987 2:73-78. Fund Appl Toxicolo. 1983 3:63-67, Nature 1988: 336; 631-633, Drung Met Rev 1984 15:409-413, Environmental Health Perspectives 96-2333-46, 1991, Env. He. Perspect 1989 81:211-19, See also New York Times March 23, 1993 cq, c20-1 for evidence of governmental acknowledgement of the limitations of the value of these bioassays.
This is one case. And I hope it passes your expectations for not “hand-waving.” I could provide the summaries of experimental data in these studies, but I’ll assume that you are able to acquire these sources on your own.
The conclusion is perhaps most stunningly represented by a study that reversed the procedure in a different context and tested known chemotherapy agents for their chemotherapeutic value in other species and found that of (If I recall the data correctly) 21 agents known to have significant chemotherapeutic value in humans, half would not have been predicted to have such value from the animal model and a significant number would have been predicted to be toxic.
Now you will respond that this takes the bioassay out of its scientific context. No one piece of evidence is used to make the analogical prediction of carcinogenesis, toxicity, or chemotherapeutic value. And of course you are correct, if you assert this. But it doesn’t escape the problem that these bioassays cannot be valuably taken to indicate ANY trans-species significance unless we already know that the effects are the same. It may happen that the results are similar across species, but these tests do not support the argument that it is likely that similar effects will occur in a different species.
I’m going to leave it at that, sure that this will not persuade you, End hand-wave.
Well, I’m giving up on most of this. The “fact based� reply is simply dismissal by assertion of authority and changing of the terms of the conversation.
Translation: I’m completely unwilling to listen and learn from people who actually have considered my arguements in the past and rejected them as rubbish based on factual information I’ve gone to great pains to avoid, ignore, and dismiss out of hand.
Well, I’m giving up on most of this. The “fact based� reply is simply dismissal by assertion of authority and changing of the terms of the conversation.
Translation: I’m completely unwilling to listen and learn from people who actually have considered my arguements in the past and rejected them as rubbish based on factual information I’ve gone to great pains to avoid, ignore, and dismiss out of hand.
Well, perhaps then you should actually respond the argument that I made in the comment rather than dismiss my statement with a trivial replacement of it which is not born out by even a cursory and sloppy reading of the remainder of my comment.
I am not unwilling. I study this, among other things, for a living. But, the refusal to address the actual argument evidenced in your response is the reason I don’t see any benefit in continuing to talk seriously in this forum. If you’d like to address the argument, maybe there is something worth talking about.
Sorry, let me clarify. It’s an opinion poll conducted by Nature on about 1200 biologists and researchers in the life sciences.
You were making the argument that life scientists thought animal research was unessential. Umm, nope.
Further, you are practicing what is known as denialism. Specifically, you’re using selectivity in presentation of your data for this point. You’re using a limited set of examples to dismiss the entire scientific literature, hundreds and thousands of experimental successes, drugs discovered, gains of knowledge made. It is exactly the same arguments that creationists are always making.
So what, you found a single example of a failure of an animal model. You think we don’t know about these? You’re lecturing a molecular biologist on how models aren’t always right? What, you think we’re retarded? Further, appeals to authority? Well, this is where you’re sounding just like a creationist, like our claims that our science actually exists is just dismissed as an opinion, or as a counter-argument or different point of view. You dismiss the entire scientific literature out of hand for your set of “examples” which show known limitations of our models. So freaking what? We know about this stuff. You say 50% of animal models don’t work, that makes it sound like we’re flipping coins here. But 50% of animal models do work, and this isn’t a coin toss. This is a process of investigation that requires the sacrifice of animals for knowledge in ways that could never be ethically performed on humans. The insights we gained from both the successes and the failures are important. It’s not a coin-toss where we’re just plain wrong 50% of the time and we might as well throw a dart at a list of chemicals to decide what works in humans. This is a non-argument, and a distortion of the scientific process. Yes, science get a lot of negative results, I acknowledged that in my initial post, it’s the most important aspect of science, that understanding that is critical to what makes a good scientist, as opposed to a bad scientist.
The question is whether or not we can learn from models, and even if something different is happening in humans, it often doesn’t matter. It’s just more complex than you’re giving it credit for. ( for a nice recent example of a great advance from an animal model see Coturnix’s blog on a great new advance in this week’s nature. ) Even when models turn out wrong, we still learn something, and determining the difference between the human and animal model can often result in the most illuminating knowledge.
Except, Ms Kate — is Sigh doing any of those things? Has s/he ignored, avoided or dismissed anyone’s arguments out of hand? S/he makes a nearly point for point argument — this is easily demonstrated just by looking above and would have to be admitted by any fair-thinking person whether they agree with him/her or not. Disagree yourself — make a damn argument — but don’t mischaracterize what someone wrote simply because you disagree with them and because sneering is easier than thinking.
And again, I have addressed the “factual content” which is a reference to an opinion poll and an argument from authority rather than an argument on the merits of the case.
Thank you for finally citing something Sigh. You’re right that I could find these studies myself, but the onus is not on me to support your claims. You provided them, so let’s take a look at them.
Mutagenesis 1987 2:73-78, Fund Appl Toxicolo. 1983 3:63-67, Nature 1988: 336; 631-633: These paper finds a small number of chemicals correlate poorly between a particular animal test and actual carcinogenesis evidence in humans and suggest alteration in how the test is carried out and data interpreted to yield better correlation, as well as further study to validate their results.
Drug Met Rev 1984 15:409-413: Not online.
Environmental Health Perspectives 96-23-31, 1991: A very comprehensive report using a database of ~450 studies to find the correlation between animal testing results and human evidence. They find a 95% correct correlation with known compounds and a very low false positive rate.
Env. He. Perspect 1989 81:211-19: A precursor to the above study. It only looks at correlations between mouse and rat studies. Not quite as good, only a bit above 70% positive.
I’ll forgoe the NY times. Anyone with any sense will admit these studies are not perfect. Despite being cherry picked and dated, just with the few studies you have cited, the evidence is positive in regards to animal testing to determine cancer risks. You’ve just shot down your own argument, well done. Just to be complete, I’ll add some more studies that give evidence that animal predictions are quite useful, if not perfect.
Eur J Cancer. 2005 Sep;41(13):1911-22. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 1991 Oct;14(2):118-46.
But really, your hand waving still is just a distraction from the point quitter made. Animal models are only a small part of how animals are used. But feel free to continue shooting yourself in the foot.
…
Well, I see that took some time and the pettiness has come more to head. I hope you enjoy the facts above Sigh.
Sigh,
You are tiresome. You made the assertion that a growing number of biologists did not believe in the use of animals. This is false.
I provided you with a scientific poll conducted by Nature, not some flub journal. It demonstrates that the number of biological scientists who felt animal research was unessential was 1%, which was less than the error on the poll. Your point is refuted, get over it.
My appeals to authority are appeals to an actual authority. You know, scientists. We know what we’re doing. Your dismissiveness towards the opinions of actual scientists about science, is what confirms Amanda’s point that ARAs hold science in disdain. It’s so similar to arguing with a creationist that it’s scary. Anything that conflicts with your worldview, dismiss it. Call it an “opinion poll” as if that somehow de-legitimizes the fact that nature found 99% of life scientists when polled believed in the essential nature of animal research.
Further, we don’t have anything to prove to you. You have something to prove to us. We have an entire scientific literature showing hundreds and thousands of examples of things we’ve learned about the basics of life from animals. You’re saying this is unneccessary, the only science that seems to count is that which leads to cures (typical dismissal of basic science that is oh so creationist). Further, you say pretty everything we’re doing is worthless because it doesn’t work 50% of the time (even though without animal models that rate would probably drop to 1%). So, that’s why I think you’re a denialist, and I’m really completely unimpressed with your so-called evidence. You have what, two examples? That versus the hundreds of articles I probably read in a single week using animals for studies? Articles like the olexin one in Nature today? You’re going to deny the utility of animal research in the face of that evidence? You’re going to cite to me penicillin? A drug discovered 70 years ago during a period in which a good drug of human value was discovered about once in a century, yeah, real impressive argument. That versus the science of today in which we discover useful drugs almost every week. Each year dozens of drugs enter our armentarium. And why is pharmacology the only science you value anyway?
It’s a joke. it’s denialism. It’s embarrassing.
You’re a denialist. There is no need for further argument.
oudemia:
Yes. making a point for point argument is all fine and dandy, but most of Sigh’s arguments ignore and deflect from what they are supposed to counter. Essentially attacking strawmen or providing a red herring.
And once my previous comment leaves moderation you might not be especially impressed with the arguements Sigh does make.
I have never claimed that–only that some do, a view your survey reference in fact supports.
No I’m not. I’m a making an argument about the grounds of logical inference. The question again is whether the animal model in these 100’s and 1000’s of cases gave us the evidence that is claimed by the experiments. There is a difference between examining the overall logical structure of an argument and a particular case of it. And further I am not “dismissing the entire scientific literature”??!!–whatever might give you that idea (especially since I cite scientific literature in my argument. . . .).
I’m not even sure I can disentagle your confusion here. The point is that we don’t know in advance of whether the animal model works whether it is going to work. The problem is evidentiary and epistemological. You beg the scientific question on your curious understanding of scientific argument.
Well, no I gave credit to the complexity in the last paragraph but pointed out that the complexity doesn’t escape the evidentiary and epistemological problem. I fully grant that we can learn something from even these studies. Perhaps it is important to know what is carcinogenic in a rat. Perhaps when we do clinical trials we will learn whether an agent that is chemotherapeutic in a rat is also chemotherapeutic in humans. My point is that the logic of the animal model does not support the inference in these cases, only (disturbingly) the clinical trial.
The problem is that once the justification of a set of experiments that requires the suffering and destruction of animals no longer contributes directly to the discovery of technologies for the alleviation of human suffering, it can no longer be support with the naive argument with which this all began. Some sort of consideration of the likelihood of benefit to human beings must be part of the calculation of the moral justification of animal experimentation. The lesser that likelihood the more difficult it is to justify significant suffering or death of animals (assuming you grant some moral significance to suffering death of animals (i.e. don’t hold a cartesian view). Even further, we should probably have much stricter requirements for funding of such experiments if their justification is “well, we’ll learn something from this.” Whether the salaries and expenses would not be better spent on other public health or scientific endeavours should be a very real question in these cases.
So the handwaving–”we learn something” from every experiment is not adequate or serious as a response. It ignores the logical/epistemological problem, it is possibly irresponsible science, and it raises significant moral questions. In fact, I think it falls back into a view that would justify any treatment of animals as long as it was done under controlled scientific protocols (i.e. whether it is even likely that the treatment will result in scientific advance).
You may be right about this. But we would need to examine exactly how this is supposed to happen and whether it escapes from the underlying logical/evidentiary problem. And also you are assuming that learning anything justifies suffering and destruction of animals. I don’t think this is true. I think the case that we learn something live-preserving and significant from animal experimentation and testing may justify particular cases of it. But, I don’t think that it plausibly is justified by saying “well, I learned something from the deaths of those 50 rats”. It precisely depends upon what is learned and what it’s value is, if you want to defend animal experimentation in the light of its benefits for humans. In the absence of those benefits you have left it undefended.
Wow, good job D. I took for granted the citations would support the 50% claim which I attacked as an illegitimate argument since even if true it suggests we’re just coinflipping in the life sciences. It’s nice to know the correlation is better than that. A correlation 50% of the time would still be valuable, hell even 10% would be better than nothing, which is what we’d have for basic science if we couldn’t use animals.
There is no confusion at all, you are confused. A 50% correlation (which D has proven is unsupported by your citations) would still mean about 50% of the time studies performed in animals would be useful. The inference would be that somehow results from animal studies are about as reliable as a coin flip. But it’s not the case. Not only did D disprove your citations said what you said they did, but 50% correlation would be better than not having any information about biological systems. It’s more gratifying that the numbers are actually higher, but knowing 50% more than nothing is no mean feat.
I fundamentally disagree with how you think knowledge isn’t a noble enough reason for killing things. Knowledge is a perfectly honorable pursuit, and you simply don’t know when a piece of knowledge is going to benefit humans and “alleviate suffering” ahead of time. The only way to know is to investigate. If you reject basic science you reject clinical science, because the innovations of clinical science rest on a backbone of basic research into how life works. And where is this suffering you’re talking about? We take good care of our animals and euthanize them humanely. They live more comfortably than they would in the wild, get all the food they need, and often live significantly longer. I take it you don’t know what ACUC committees are or IRBs? A lot of this idea of “suffering” in research is hyped up crap and exaggerations of a few examples of research which requires the animals to suffer. Such experiments are very rare, if only because before we do anything we have to have it approved by ACUC committees which consist of a vet, a scientist and a member of the community who determine if the study is scientifically meritorious, will not cause undue suffering, and seems justified based on what could be gained.
Further, you are rejecting our literature. You’re saying animal models aren’t predictive or useful. This is incorrect. Examples every day, one of which I cited which just came out in this week’s nature of incredible stuff. And animals models aren’t the end all of animal contributions to biologic science. You simply did not address how the entire biological pursuit is dependent on animals. How will we do cell culture without animal serums to feed the cells or cells derived from animal tissues? HeLa cells don’t cut it for everything. How will we generate antibodies to study proteins without animals? You know all those tests you get from your clinician, a lot of those are based on antibodies derived from animals. How will we identify protein structure and function without animals to derive them from for study? How will we understand physiology without animal tissues to study? We can’t use dead stuff, and human tissue donation is already at it’s limit of supply. Besides the issues of control are impossible. How will we study anything in biology without these critical reagents? How could we contruct something like a mouse brain atlas that identifies the gene expression at cellular level without animals? How can you deny the utility of such a tool despite it not leading immediately to a cure to some disease like, next week, rather than in 20-30years?
You’re talking about the death of basic biological science. Without the basic science the clinical science has no compass. Your arguments reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of scientific progress. Your disdain for basic science is telling and proves Amanda’s point.
Your use of sentences like “The problem is evidentiary and epistemological. You beg the scientific question on your curious understanding of scientific argument.” don’t make you sound smarter. They just make you sound pretentious.
The evidence is unquestionably on our side of the value and necessity of animals at every stage of the life sciences endeavor. You have provided no evidence our pursuit of knowledge could proceed without animals. You have provided no alternative means to these pursuits.
Finally, the fact that 99% of life science researchers see the need for animals in research doesn’t convince you that your “handful” might be wrong is embarrassing.
Now it’s time for me to quit. I’ve forgotten how easy it is for denialists to draw you into argument despite the complete absence of data for their POV.
No. 50 % of the time the same effect is observed, 50% of the time it is not. We don’t know prior to this which of the two will hold. So as evidence it cannot be predictive. It may turn out that 50% of the time the same effect is observed. But in may not. And what we want to know is the effect in the human not the rat.
“If we restrict attention to long-term feeding studies with mice or rats, only seven of the 19 human non-inhalation carcinogens (36.8%) have been show to cause cancer. If we consider long term feeding or inhalation studies and examine all 26, only 12 (46.2%) have been shown to cause cancer in rats or micce after chronic exposure by feeding or inhalation. Thus, the lifetime feeding study in mice and rats appears to have less than a 50% probability of finding known human carcinogens. On the basis of probability theory, we would have been better off to toss a coin”
Fund Appl Toxicolo. 1983 3:63-67.
If you notice my introductory sentence in the post I claimed “some.” And, unless I am misreading this argument, that’s precisely what it says. You’re right that’s not all it says, but it does at least say exactly what I attributed to it.
Do I really have to go through them one by one, and show what portions of each support the claim that I am making–that we do not know in advance whether a result in an animal model is predictive and so the value of the experiment must be judged accordingly.
But again we see the real argument in the later post of the other guy. That is, that it doesn’t matter because science justifies any use of animals–whether we learn anything or not, and whether what we learn is valuable or not, the intention to learn is enough.
I mean, cmon, “”I’m too pretentious” in using the technical language of my discipline—-THAT IS SERIOUSLY THE LEVEL OF ARGUMENT YOU ARE ADOPTING? Well, let’s be done with this.
If you take it, then you can’t have been reading very carefully all along–as evidenced repeatedly here–since, I talked about comparative regulation of animal use in Europe and the U.S. and offered a criticism in the current model in the U.S. in comparison to the some European regulatory frameworks.
This makes quitter seem silly. This really isn’t particularly challenging or uncommon language — I learned it in Philosophy 101 when I was 17.
Your attempts to demean and deride your interlocutor really only amount to a very sloppy (and unscientific!) style-over-substance fallacy and attempted ad hominem .
And really
is, unarguably, I think, the most radical statement made in this thread.I’m really not sure what your argument is here anymore Sigh. From your use of the evidence it seems that you want to say because one test being used in an animal system has a correlative success rate anywhere from ~50% to 95% depending on what report you wish to cherry pick, that we shouldn’t perform this particular test. Really, every step it seems like you’ve pigeonholed your argument, from no animal testing to one specific test that isn’t perfect. Just what is it you think you want that you can actual support with evidence?
Well, just in case you’ll read the following with the slightest care before you attack my integrity or mischaracterize my argument:
The predictivity of animal bioassays and short-term genotoxicity tests for carcinogenicity and non-carcinogenicity to humans
Fanny K. Ennever, Thomas J. Noonan and Herbert S. Rosenkranz
Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, School of Medicine Cleveland, OH 44106, USA
The successful use of surrogate tests to predict whether a chemical may be carcinogenic to humans requires that the tests be both sensitive (few false negatives) and specific (few false positives). To assess specificity, results for non-carcinogens must be compared. Although no chemicals have been definitively shown not to cause cancer in humans, we have identified 29 chemicals for which some evidence of non-carcinogenicity exists in evaluations by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Twenty of these probable non-carcinogens have been tested for rodent carcinogenicity in animal bioassays; 19 were positive and only one was negative, indicating that the specificity of animal bioassays is low. The sensitivity of animal bioassays, however, is very high: all definite human carcinogens adequately tested were positive. Most short-term tests which measure genotoxicity or transformation also had low specificity; however, four tests gave predominantly negative results for probable human non-carcinogens as well as predominantly positive results for definite human carcinogens. These results are based on comparison of small numbers of chemicals, but do suggest the need for more investigation of the relationships of genotoxicity and rodent carcinogenicity to carcinogenicity in humans.
The Lifetime Feeding Study in Mice and Rats - An Examination of Its Validity as a Bioassay for Human Carcinogens
DAVID SALSBURG
Pfizer Central Research Groton, CT
The Lifetime Feeding Study in Mice and Rats - An Examination of Its Validity as a Bioassay for Human Carcinogens. Salsburg, D. (1983). Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 3:63-67. Currently used designs for carcinogenic bioassay (lifetime feeding studies in mice or rats using maximum tolerated doses of the test compound) are examined to see if they meet the requirements of a bioassay, using the results of 170 compounds reported on as of June, 1980, by the National Cancer Institute. It is concluded that the lifetime feeding study has never been subjected to proper validation as an assay for human carcinogens. When an attempt is made to validate it on the basis of these reported studies and those in the literature, it appears to lack acceptable specificity and sensitivity. It is suggested that a drastically different design is needed and that such redesigning of the assay will require proper validation.
Information value of the rodent bioassay 631
Tests for human carcinogens using lifetime rodent bioassays are expensive, time-consuming and give uncertain results. For most chemicals such tests are not cost-effective.
Lester B. Lave, Fanny K. Ennever, Herbert S. Rosenkranz & Gilbert S. Omenn
Then EHP 81 211-219.
“For 392 chemicals tested in both species, 76% of the rat carcinogens are positive in the vouse, and 70% of mouse carcinogens are positive in the rat.”
“While it is possible to assess the sensitivity of rodent bioassays to detect human carcinogens, it is not possible to assess directly whether rodent carcinogens. . . have any substantial carcinogenic effect on humans. Many researchers are skeptical of extrapolating risk from rodent to humans [cites excluded].” “The results presented in this paper indicate that prediction of carcinogenicity between rats and mice is correct 75% of the time, and that predictive values vary according to several factors including mutagenitcity of the compound, chemical class, does level at which a chemical is toxic and target organ. In rodent bioassays even though nearly 50% of chemicals test positive in each species, overall perdication to the other rodent species in incorrect 25% of the time. . . The overall predictive value from rats to humans or from mice to humans would be expected to be less than 75% since rats and mice are closely related species.”
Oh God, I’m certainly not re-iterating the argument especially since there is no reason to believe that it is getting the slightest care in reading before it causes another round of assertion without argument and plenty of mischaracterization or at least misunderstanding. I think it should be roughly clear with a rudimentary (as oudemia rightly points out) understanding of logic (OK, maybe a little understanding of theory of science/probablility theory and its argumentation) and some minimal attention to what I have said (OK, maybe the ability to entertain the minimal assumption that animal suffering deserves some moral consideration). The reason it seems to have jumped around is that I made the mistake of responding to attacks on the premises of the argument which led only to further attacks and further defenses and explication.
But, cheers, anyway.
Such bad faith Sigh. I did look up every reference you gave and read the abstract and at least glanced over the full text when available to me, which it was for all but the one I mentioned wasn’t online. I’m going to stop pretending you know what you’re talking about now. Those references are plastered on so many ARA websites it is obvious you’re just parroting but have gotten in over your head. They are outdated. I’d say they don’t support your arguments, but as I already said, I don’t even know what it is. You know a little philosophy and a little science, but you’ve past your limit. Learn a bit more if you want to be taken seriously, at least enough to call me on my obvious BS in my summaries and do your own journal searchs.
If anyone is still reading this that actual cares what the literature says regarding this particular test, the rodent bioassay, I’ll summarize. As with most any procedure it has gotten better with tweakings. It still isn’t perfect, but it is very good at identifying actual carcinogens. Its main drawback is that it has a relatively high false positive rate, though that has certainly been reduced over time as well. Currently there are, as someone mentioned above, other methods being developed to help verify the results of rodent bioassays, though it will likely be some years before they are practical to use on a large scale basis and likely decades before they can match the rodent bioassay for efficacy, if ever.
I find the last paragraph perplexing–but perhaps that’s because I’m out of my depth as you say.
Although some refinement in the predictive capacity of these tests is possible, isn’t the real reason that they are not predictive, the fact that some chemicals are carcinogenic in one species and not in others? Carcinogenesis is not an absolute property but depends in part on the biochemistry of the species and also in fact on the specific biochemistry of sites in a species–some compounds are carcinogenic in one organ in one species and not in the same organs in others. So the point I take it is not that this is just a technical glitch (as you curiously seem to be claiming) but that there are biochemical reasons for differential carcinogenetic effects in different species. Certainly if we can learn all of the causal mechanisms that are relevant for carcinogenesis then we can strengthen the analogical argument that would allow trans-species predictions of carcinogenic effects–(but there are problems with this approach as well, that I’ll leave aside) But, it isn’t a matter of technical refinement, but a matter of biochemical differences. But, you presumably understand that and are just yanking my chain?
I’ll ignore the abusive paragraphs (once again) that lack any argument or content.
And I suspect your right–my notes on this are in fact “dated” and probably come from scholarly literature of about 10-15 years of age. (Though the fact that they are “dated” unfortunately is not an argument–it is probably a version of the fallacy of appeal to ignorance–unless you have some specific data in mind that disproves or radically alters the results of these studies). I’m sure “Brute Science” (cited earlier) cites most of these references and probably more–and I recommend it to you if you want to understand how these arguments are discussed in the philosophical literature on this subject.
I should really use this thread next time I teach intro to logic. I don’t think that you guys have missed a single fallacy from the logic textbooks! (And I’ve even hit a few along with you!)
Once again, cheers.
I find it interesting that sigh has focused on animal testing while ignoring all the animal products needed both for modern medical therapies and diagnostic tests and for teaching the basics of biology and physiology to those who will become our next generation of doctors, nurses, clinicians, etc.
Periodically someone throws it out and sigh ignores it completely.
quitter:
Sigh:Okay, then, who’s up for a little Monty Python?
C’mon, Sigh,. you had to know perfectly well what that would sound like, right? Please?
oudemia:
Ah, the joys of the fallacy fallacy (sic).Can I call your proposition unsound because you’ve engaged in it?Well Sigh, there was not one reason the false positive rates were sometimes so high. Part of it is that some compounds simply affect different species differently as you say, which has been largely corrected for in how the predictions are made. Mostly it was the methods, specifically the dose levels, which has also been altered. And then part of it was how people were making the predictions from their results, which as I already said has been altered. If you’d look the second EHP paper you cited, you can see how some of these things were being changed around the time to improve the power of the assay, in part based on suggestions from the other papers you cited. With the current methods the apparent false positives are down to the single digits percent wise as long as scare mongers aren’t the ones interpreting them. And that latter is the real problem I’ve encountered today; media wanting to get attention, making leaps of logic, often counter to the complete evidence, to scare people about getting cancer.
is, unarguably, I think, the most radical statement made in this thread.
Wow. Basic science is radical? Funny, that’s what we do every day.
Your position is so poorly examined it’s embarrassing. What do you think biomed scientists are doing every day with these animals? Clinical research represents a minority of what people study in labs, we come up with clinical justifications for studying problems to get grant money, but in the end, it’s just basic science we’re doing here. Where do you think our reagents come from to do things even if we’re not directly killing animals? The antibodies? The serum? The proteins? The cell lines? We kill for knowledge, either own up to it, or just say you hate science already.
We kill for knowledge all the time. We also kill to drive to work (I see the bug and squirrel lovers have left us), we kill when we shower (mites aren’t animals?), we kill when we build houses, we kill when we farm (organic farmers just use a different set of pesticides - or use animals to control other pests), we kill when we clean our houses, we kill things constantly. We kill for comfort, for health, for convenience, for food, all the time. And if you say this isn’t true then I guess you’d have no problem with a roach or rat infestation, you’ve never worn leather, never eaten meat, never driven a car, never lived in a house, never showered, never used bleach, never done anything that impacted the environment around you every day.
This immature belief that humans can somehow exist in a death-free zone while participating in virtually any of our daily activities or protecting our quality of life is just so pathetically unexamined, and the fact you think killing for knowledge is wrong just goes to show you don’t believe any of the science we’re talking about should be done.
Naked chicks in PETA ads: the ethics of getting your point across….
There’s been some blogospheric blowout (see here, here, and here for just a taste) about a recent PETA ad that many viewers find gratuitously sexist. To me, the ad and the reaction to it are most interesting because they raise……
With each new generation, comes the realisations of some of the mistakes of the former.
Something to do with evolution I suspect.
Many practices of the past are no longer practiced.
Abortion should soon join the fray.
So should female circumcision, and all types of oppression,we need to see that all mankind has their basic human rights respected.
With each new generation, comes the realisations of some of the mistakes of the former. Something to do with evolution I suspect.
Many practices of the past are no longer practiced. Abortion should soon join the fray.
Evolve enough to look up the correct meaning of the word “fray”, would you?
Fray v. rub;make or become ragged at edge.
(as in something worn out)
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is a United States law which defines violent assault committed against pregnant women as being a crime against two persons: the woman and the fetus she carries.
This law was passed in 2004 after the murder of the then pregnant Laci Peterson and her fetus, Connor Peterson.
If it is right for a man (or woman) to be charged for homicide and sentenced to prison (or worse) for killing the unborn (and rightfully so)
then shouldn’t the unborn have equil consideration in relation to abortion..?
Is a fetus earmarked for abortion of any less value to a fetus killed by violence…?
Is not abortion a violent attack on an inocent life just the same…?
I think it’s not ethical to protect one without the other…..
they’re one and the same……..
[…] 7. I also had to give a shout out to Amanda on this post comparing anti-abortion activists and animal rights activists. […]
You’re not going to get very far by citing a law pushed through by an anti-choice congress. You want to think of a fetus as a person, you go right ahead. But let me ask you this; when a person is doing harm to your body, should you be allowed to take actions to stop them? Would it be permissible for such actions to result in said person’s death? The law is fairly clear upon this point.
Discount phentermine prescription….
Discount phentermine. Phentermine pill online discount. Discount phentermine online pharmacy….
Comaparing Animal Rights and the rights of the unborn
is inhumane. Humans are not in the catagory of
animals. Abortion has decreaced the number of
African Americans and other minorities who could be in this country. Abortion decreaces family intergration signifigantly.
I am a Black man who is interracially married. I have a biological son who is half white and an adopted
daughter who is African American like myself. I look forward to a more intergrated America like my family.
A few states like Mississippi could
have been majority minority with Black govenors.
They could have been represented by majoritys of Minority seanators and congressmen.
Another sad development abortion has caused is that
tens of thousands of interracial babies who could
have intergrated tens of thousands of families,were never born. Also, thousands of White families could have been blended through adoption.
Abortion slows the day when most American
families will be able to point to the minority members
of thier families.
It slows intergration.
Mabey that is why White Racist groups like Neo Natzis and the KKK Love Abortion in Ghettos but they try to blow up clinics in predomanantly White areas.
Interracial Power.
Interesting… I think the majority of your entry is dead on and really shows how PETA uses the same propaganda that anti-abortionists do…
But towards the end there, a little off the mark. Your comments about PETA killing animals; your promotion of so-called “no-kill” shelters - doesn’t it strike you as being similer to the rhetoric used by anti-choicers when they decsribe the “killing” of fetuses etc etc? I see a huge parallel between the language of anti-choicers and anti-euthenasia advocates (other wise known as the no-kill movement). All this this languge does is juxtapose “no-kill” with kill, creating a value system that equates a shelter that does euthenize animals with the bad mommies who kill their babies. Who makes this false systems of ethics? Why is it bad to end a pregnancy you don’t want? Why is it bad to euthenize an animal who is suffering or is totally unadoptable? It creates a “culture of life” the same way anti-choice rhetoric does.
If I may, I’d love to suggest you do a little research on “no-kill”. It’s eye-opening. There’s no such thing as a “no-kill” shelter - animals unsuitable for adoption (due to health, temperment, etc) are shipped off to animal control agencies and open-admission animal welfare agencies who do wind up euthenizing the animal because there is no way to place them in a home. I work in an open admission shelter. This means that we take in any and all animals no questions asked. “no-kill”, or as they are properly called, limited-admission shelters/organizations, only take in what they deem adoptable and refer the rest to us. How do you place a 10 year old rotweiller who’s lived his whole live chained in a yard and has developed aggression issues? How do you place a young border collie without bite inhibition and a extreme fear of men/children/other dogs? Where are the resources to help these dogs? Those resources turn them away and send them to us, a non-profit open admission shelter that has only 26 dog kennels and recieves on average 2-5 dogs a day.
Think about it.
Interesting… I think the majority of your entry is dead on and really shows how PETA uses the same propaganda that anti-abortionists do…
But towards the end there, a little off the mark. Your comments about PETA killing animals; your promotion of so-called “no-kill” shelters - doesn’t it strike you as being similer to the rhetoric used by anti-choicers when they decsribe the “killing” of fetuses etc etc? I see a huge parallel between the language of anti-choicers and anti-euthenasia advocates (other wise known as the no-kill movement). All this this languge does is juxtapose “no-kill” with kill, creating a value system that equates a shelter that does euthenize animals with the bad mommies who kill their babies. Who makes this false systems of ethics? Why is it bad to end a pregnancy you don’t want? Why is it bad to euthenize an animal who is suffering or is totally unadoptable? It creates a “culture of life” the same way anti-choice rhetoric does.
If I may, I’d love to suggest you do a little research on “no-kill”. It’s eye-opening. There’s no such thing as a “no-kill” shelter - animals unsuitable for adoption (due to health, temperment, etc) are shipped off to animal control agencies and open-admission animal welfare agencies who do wind up euthenizing the animal because there is no way to place them in a home. I work in an open admission shelter. This means that we take in any and all animals no questions asked. “no-kill”, or as they are properly called, limited-admission shelters/organizations, only take in what they deem adoptable and refer the rest to us. How do you place a 10 year old rotweiller who’s lived his whole live chained in a yard and has developed aggression issues? How do you place a young border collie without bite inhibition and a extreme fear of men/children/other dogs? Where are the resources to help these dogs? Those resources turn them away and send them to us, a non-profit open admission shelter that has only 26 dog kennels and recieves on average 2-5 dogs a day.
Think about it.