Wow. Lots of people getting called "nuts" in this thread, methinks. I guess this is always going to get some emotional reaction, but still...
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
PETA vs Seaworld
- Thread starter Tituscrow
- Start date
yep... leave us alone and we'll leave you alone... you don't like fox hunting, don't do it... others do like it.... well, to each his own. never fox hunted, but there are far worse things people could be doing.
and right there... in your first sentence you implyed that you were not telling people what to do, and then you spend the rest of your post bragging that you, in fact, have told people what to do.
ps-edit- and i really don't know how to respond to your question about "...passively letting it go without expressing my disdain...etc"--exactly what form does this expression of disdain take?...like boobytrapping the runs where fox hunters are going, so that they themselves may come to harm?
Lonesomedave said:
yep... leave us alone and we'll leave you alone... you don't like fox hunting, don't do it... others do like it.... well, to each his own. never fox hunted, but there are far worse things people could be doing.
and right there... in your first sentence you implyed that you were not telling people what to do, and then you spend the rest of your post bragging that you, in fact, have told people what to do.
ps-edit- and i really don't know how to respond by your question about "...passively letting it go without expressing my disdain...etc"--exactly what form does this expression of disdain take...like boobytrapping the runs where fox hunter's are going, so that they themselves may come to harm?
Ok. So going slightly off topic, should William Wilberforce have kept his feelings about slavery to himself, or is your 'to each his own' argument limited only to issues regarding animal welfare?
I freaking love Colbert.
And this isn't the first time PETA and others have gone after Seaworld, nor do I expect it to be the last.
How many whale watching ships also have roller coasters and sea lions dancing to thriller?
And this isn't the first time PETA and others have gone after Seaworld, nor do I expect it to be the last.
How many whale watching ships also have roller coasters and sea lions dancing to thriller?
And yes, I've been on a few hunt sabs in my time, but ALL of them were about distraction (noises, false scents etc), not the deliberate harm of the dogs or horses. That would have made us no better than the snooty toffs out to revel in the glory of the most one-sided 'battle' you could imagine.
Anyway, it's clear we don't agree. Enjoy your whale burger.
Anyway, it's clear we don't agree. Enjoy your whale burger.
are we talking about animals or people here? ...just asking
look, i am, proudly, a libertarian. as long as people don't do things that affirmatively hurt other people, in general i feel they should be left alone to do them.
drugs... legalize them
prostitution... legalize it.
gambling etc, you name it.... the principal is the same... generally, people should be free to pursue their own interests as long as it does not hurt other people.
well, dave, you say "generally", what the heck do you mean by that?
because, i am human, and some forms of let's just use this example, animal cruelty, repel me. the old lady with 100 cats in her house, and not taking care of them, eg.
the problem is, i just don't know how to draw the line, and once professional line-drawers enter the picture, i believe we are on the road to 1984 (the book that is).
i believe we have to be very careful about stopping behavior that "repels" us (to use your words), because very soon we find ourselves on the receiving end. after all, if you set the precedent that it is ok to make things you don't like illegal, then the next person who comes into power may not like some of the things that YOU do.
so, i have not answered your question about slavery directly--i am not even sure it was meant seriously.... but if you can't tell where i stand on it, then you don't have the intelligence i give you credit for.
even if you are an ARN--
I have NO issues with stopping cruelty toward animals; none what so ever. But we DO have finite financial resources. With that reality in mind, if it takes "X" amount of money to stop the suffering of my own species: that's where I refer it to go.
Is that "Species-ist"? Perhaps.
I would also do whatever I could to stop the suffering of an animal and not perpetuate it (I'm not into meat anyway) but because there IS a finite amount of financial resources in the world, I would refer it going to ease the suffering of people first & animals second. That preference doesn't have to negate my detesting the suffering of animals.
A child born with a birth defect or HIV didn't do anything to deserve that & that same kid could find a way to avert famine throughout the world as an adult without the loss of a single chicken's life.
Is that "Species-ist"? Perhaps.
I would also do whatever I could to stop the suffering of an animal and not perpetuate it (I'm not into meat anyway) but because there IS a finite amount of financial resources in the world, I would refer it going to ease the suffering of people first & animals second. That preference doesn't have to negate my detesting the suffering of animals.
A child born with a birth defect or HIV didn't do anything to deserve that & that same kid could find a way to avert famine throughout the world as an adult without the loss of a single chicken's life.
hah! i knew it... and gregC objects to my referring to ARN's
and BTW, the next to last paragraph revels your true motive. you don't love foxes, you just don't like the people who hunt them.
ps-edit- no, it would not have made you "no better"... it would have made you far worse. they were not hurting anybody, and the fact that you would equate what they were doing with sabbing (as you call it) so as to hurt or kill them just makes my point about ARNs-- you really can't see the difference, can you?
and as a libertarian, I SUPPORT their right to get nekkid...as long as it doesn't hurt anyone....
Unfortunately we eat such a large number of animals (7 billion per year in the US, I believe) that they cannot be raised in humane conditions. Even with their recent popularity, humanely raised meat constitutes around 1% of all the meat eaten in America. So even though the cruelties at the circus might be more visible, convincing people to eat less meat is a more effective way to reduce animal cruelty than boycotting Ringling Bros.
and therein lies the difference...
you are NOT an ARN. at least, I don't think you are... right...
as long as you limit your activities to trying to convince people, go for it, make arguments, persuade.
it is when people seek to use the coercive arm of Big Brother to FORCE compliance with the their mandates... or in other ways seek to compel such compliance (see Titus's post about "sabbing" foxhunts above) that I have a real problem with them.
you are NOT an ARN. at least, I don't think you are... right...
Well the jury is still out on that one.
The problem with relying solely on the reasonabless of our arguments is that the people we are arguing against are typically large corporations that use purchased political influence, rather than the merit of their ideology, to push their agenda and turn a profit. So the AR movement is forced to make use of similar tactics in order to have a somewhat level playing field. While I would love the two sides to be forced to compete solely on the merit of their ideologies, it will never happen and thus we get PETA suing SeaWorld for enslaving orcas.
Well the jury is still out on that one.
The problem with relying solely on the reasonabless of our arguments is that the people we are arguing against are typically large corporations that use purchased political influence, rather than the merit of their ideology, to push their agenda and turn a profit. So the AR movement is forced to make use of similar tactics in order to have a somewhat level playing field. While I would love the two sides to be forced to compete solely on the merit of their ideologies, it will never happen and thus we get PETA suing SeaWorld for enslaving orcas.
nope, don't buy it... nobody is forcing the ARN to do anything. they CHOOSE to use all the tactics that i despise. they just say they are "forced" into something so they can justify their Big-Brother-like intrusions into society...if you're going to say that, you might as well be Titus on one of his foxhunt "sabs"...."they FORCED me to do it because they wouldn't stop when i told them to, and foxhunting is legal in this country and i despise it"...yatta yatta
what you are really saying, whether you know it or not, is "we can't win an argument, so we will use [insert favorite tactic of coercion here] force, violence, Big Brother, Courts etc.
i don't buy it for a second. win your arguments fairly in the court of public opinion or man up and lose them!
As long as animals are legal property, it's a big stretch to presume to tell their owners what they may or may not do with said property if what they are doing is not harming another human. If I pick up my dog and try to hit you with it then it becomes your business. Short of that, it's my property to do with as I please, or should be.
I love my dogs very much and would never do anything to harm them, unless you consider them living outside as my organic alarm system and also responsible for alerting me to the presence of snakes, etc is a cruel way to treat them.
my dogs work for their groceries and heart worm pills, and part of that work is the possibility they may run afoul of a big azzed eastern diamondback in the yard so myself or wifey will not be the one surprised by mr. no shoulders.
So far they've alerted us on many occasions to snakes (both dangerous and not), and survived, but if they happen to go down keeping us from doing so, that's what they are here for so IMO they have done their job well, and exactly as intended.
I love my dogs very much and would never do anything to harm them, unless you consider them living outside as my organic alarm system and also responsible for alerting me to the presence of snakes, etc is a cruel way to treat them.
my dogs work for their groceries and heart worm pills, and part of that work is the possibility they may run afoul of a big azzed eastern diamondback in the yard so myself or wifey will not be the one surprised by mr. no shoulders.
So far they've alerted us on many occasions to snakes (both dangerous and not), and survived, but if they happen to go down keeping us from doing so, that's what they are here for so IMO they have done their job well, and exactly as intended.
Dave, Dave, Dave....where to begin?
You are clearly after having the last word, so I'm bailing after this post and its all yours dear boy.
Firstly, do you even know who Wilberforce was? I suspect not, which gives me an indication of the level of background knowledge - or lack of it - I am dealing with.
Secondly, legalise all prostitution? Seriously? It's ok to entrap young east european girls into putting out for fat, sweaty city businessmen, just a long as 'Big Brother' doesn't interfere? Maybe if you have a daughter that one day ends up down that road you may feel different.
Thirdly, do a bit of research about the history of the British hunt and the battle to have it banned before you make any more ill-advised comments about something beyond your sphere of experience. Legislation was passed to ban it by the last government for good reason. Saboteurs are so called because they...um...sabotage. Look up a definition.
Finally...if you are seriously suggesting that by and large, people should be able to do whatever the hell they want, regardless of consequences and without concern or compassion for anything or anyone, then good luck to you.
At least now I know why you are Lonesome. Your arguments have so many holes you make a seive look watertight.
You are clearly after having the last word, so I'm bailing after this post and its all yours dear boy.
Firstly, do you even know who Wilberforce was? I suspect not, which gives me an indication of the level of background knowledge - or lack of it - I am dealing with.
Secondly, legalise all prostitution? Seriously? It's ok to entrap young east european girls into putting out for fat, sweaty city businessmen, just a long as 'Big Brother' doesn't interfere? Maybe if you have a daughter that one day ends up down that road you may feel different.
Thirdly, do a bit of research about the history of the British hunt and the battle to have it banned before you make any more ill-advised comments about something beyond your sphere of experience. Legislation was passed to ban it by the last government for good reason. Saboteurs are so called because they...um...sabotage. Look up a definition.
Finally...if you are seriously suggesting that by and large, people should be able to do whatever the hell they want, regardless of consequences and without concern or compassion for anything or anyone, then good luck to you.
At least now I know why you are Lonesome. Your arguments have so many holes you make a seive look watertight.
Titus is right to say that the public opinon battle on fox hunting was won over here a few years ago. I saw that as a real sign of civilised progress at the time. It's a recent example of how people's attitudes to other animals has changed over the years quite drastically.
This story is an example of a different phenomenon, though. I think it describes a very sad situation, in several different respects.
BBC News - Exotic pets: Why do Americans keep dangerous animals?
This story is an example of a different phenomenon, though. I think it describes a very sad situation, in several different respects.
BBC News - Exotic pets: Why do Americans keep dangerous animals?
I've been following this thread and the life on other planets thread too. It got me thinking.
If we ever encounter a rational extraterrestrial species that had the intellectual and technological capability to exploit us - you know, keep us in captivity, hunt us for food or for sport, make us perform for entertainment, whatever - would any of us support their moral right to do so? And to what extent?
For example, would the battery farming of human babies for their meat be morally okay? Would it be conditionally okay, based on the conditions the babies were bred and kept in and the methods used to slaughter them? How about keeping suitably neutered human juveniles as pets (some children might really enjoy this) but then disposing of them in adulthood because we'd become too unhappily dangerous to keep? Or hunting humans as a social or recreational activity, or for trophies?
Let's hear some views on this.
If we ever encounter a rational extraterrestrial species that had the intellectual and technological capability to exploit us - you know, keep us in captivity, hunt us for food or for sport, make us perform for entertainment, whatever - would any of us support their moral right to do so? And to what extent?
For example, would the battery farming of human babies for their meat be morally okay? Would it be conditionally okay, based on the conditions the babies were bred and kept in and the methods used to slaughter them? How about keeping suitably neutered human juveniles as pets (some children might really enjoy this) but then disposing of them in adulthood because we'd become too unhappily dangerous to keep? Or hunting humans as a social or recreational activity, or for trophies?
Let's hear some views on this.
Of course nobody forced them to use these tactics. Just like nobody forced big Ag to pay off politicians so they can profit at the expense of our tax dollars and health. It is certainly not an ideal situation and I can appreciate why you find it upsetting, in fact I think we both do. But can I ask why you aren't upset with Big ag for their practices? Certainly they are not on the up and up with their tactics either. When the argument is had out based on the facts the AR folks generally fare pretty well (at least my experience leafletting tells me so). For every person who is blatantly inflammatory and rude I meet 10 or 20 who are at least polite and most are receptive to the message and find the conditions of farmed animals appalling.
What it all comes down to is that the AR movement will pursue what ever legal (or mostly legal) avenues available to stop animal cruelty. Just like other organizations will pursue the same avenues to achieve whatever goal it is they have. People tell you what to do all the time, you can either add constructively to the dialog or you can go off on diatribes about civil liberties and whale burgers, but the more often you choose the second option the more reasonable you make PETA look.
As much as I would love this to be a direct comparisson to what we do to animals, it isn't. My dog is pretty happy living neutered in my home. I can't say that I would be anywhere near as happy under the same circumstances. What I think it comes down to is cognitive ability, the ability to understand your circumstances and prefer something different.
As far as a moral right to hunt or eat meat, of course there isn't support for it. We have a moral duty to reduce suffering as possible, so hunting or eating meat when not necessary is never morally permissible, regardless of which side of the equation humanity is on.
this thread isn't about big ag, it's about PETA and to slough off their egregious activites with terms likely 'MOSTLY LEGAL" makes me laugh....they are essentially criminals who justify their crimes by saying we have a higher good.
or, when they are not committing crimes, in the name of that higher good, they are abusing our already overburdened legal system with frivolous lawsuits.
last i heard big ag wasn't doing either.
as far as a right to hunt or eat meat... of course there is...as long as you don't hurt other people (directly) by doing it...you don't have the right, for example to commit trespass, nor do you have the right to kill and eat someone else's property (say, by chicken stealing).
i say it again.... if YOU don't like it, don't do it...let those who want to do it, do it...everybody gets what they want...and everybody's happy.
oops wait, PETA is not happy with this, are they...they want to be able to cram their Fascist agenda down everybody's throat whether you believe in want they stand for or not.
last i heard, hunters were NOT doing that!
