PETA vs Seaworld

[fhm555]

Sorry, but both the points you attempt to make here are really weak, to the point of being transparently silly.

I'm glad to hear at least that you have reservations about the concept of animal ownership. The fact that someone's "ownership" of an animal entitles them to do to it whatever they like just has to be morally repugnant to anyone. Do I own my two cats? And if I do, should I be legally and morally entitled to torture them? If you really think that's okay, then I don't think you'll find too many people to agree with you - for which fact we should be grateful. I do hope that's not what you really meant.

As far as the analogy with plants goes, that's just totally lame, imo. There's no scientific basis for assuming that any organism without a complex nervous system can suffer in the way that, for example, any mammal can. If you genuinely believe that digging up potatoes is in the same moral category as slaughtering a cow, then we're just going to have to differ,

I never said I condone torture or I thought it was OK to torture. Anyone sick enough to torture is not going to worry about laws or morals.

I'm talking about people who tell me I'm being cruel to my dogs because they live outside. I'm talking about people who take a very good and just cause and turn it into a joke by taking it to silly extremes.

As silly as the idea that a plant has the same standing as a cow, which according to some, has the same standing as a child.

 

[BassyBill]

As silly as the idea that a plant has the same standing as a cow, which according to some, has the same standing as a child.

I wasn't advocating eating children. But from a biological point of view, a cow and a child are pretty closely related. Both belong to the following classification:

Metazoa - Bilateria – Deuterostomia – Chordata – Craniata – Vertebrata – Gnathostomata – Sarcopterygii – Terrestrial vertebrates – Amniota – Synapsida – Therapsida – Mammalia – Eutheria

Carrots, on the other hand, do not.

 

[Lady Kayri]

Hmm. My day job in the summer is now working at the Cape May Dolphin & Whale Watch. Interesting fact in reference to the subject: dolphins in captivity live an average of five years after capture, no matter age at capture. Dolphins in the wild live an average of fifty years. So while some species of sea life do well in captivity (such as the seahorses mentioned earlier) seems dolphins aren't one of them.

That being said, the current PETA activity seems more geared to raising publicity than actually accomplishing anything concrete. Most people I've heard discussing it seem to think it's a pretty stupid lawsuit.

 

[sandmangeck]

I wasn't advocating eating children. But from a biological point of view, a cow and a child are pretty closely related. Both belong to the following classification:

Metazoa - Bilateria – Deuterostomia – Chordata – Craniata – Vertebrata – Gnathostomata – Sarcopterygii – Terrestrial vertebrates – Amniota – Synapsida – Therapsida – Mammalia – Eutheria

Carrots, on the other hand, do not.

Don't come in here confusing everyone with your facts!

 

[fhm555]

I wasn't advocating eating children. But from a biological point of view, a cow and a child are pretty closely related. Both belong to the following classification:

Metazoa - Bilateria – Deuterostomia – Chordata – Craniata – Vertebrata – Gnathostomata – Sarcopterygii – Terrestrial vertebrates – Amniota – Synapsida – Therapsida – Mammalia – Eutheria

Carrots, on the other hand, do not.

Hmmmm, PETC perhaps?

 

[Hobobob]

Hmmmm, PETC perhaps?

As a teacher who works with children on a daily basis, I can confidently say that they are fascinating and complex social organisms that should be respected and studied instead of taken for granted and simply eaten. They may be delicious, but what we can learn from them outweighs the number of marvelous recipes we can make out of them....

 

[Kipaste]

Hmm. My day job in the summer is now working at the Cape May Dolphin & Whale Watch. Interesting fact in reference to the subject: dolphins in captivity live an average of five years after capture, no matter age at capture. Dolphins in the wild live an average of fifty years. So while some species of sea life do well in captivity (such as the seahorses mentioned earlier) seems dolphins aren't one of them.

Yes, there are certainly great variation in how animals survive in captivity. Of course whales and dolphins are very complex and social species and I find it somewhat suprising that there are people who can't read the quite obvious and huge "BAD IDEA" sign hovering abowe the very idea of keeping whales in captivity.

But when it comes to fish, many do really well in captivity and even though I've quit a job at public aquarium, I still firmly believe they can do a lot of good when the animals are chosen correctly. Many fish species will easily outlive their wild counterparts and also reproduce in captivity. Also pretty much all small polyp sclerectinia can be cultivated in captivity from tiny fragments, something which simply was not possible two decades ago. At the moment, when it comes to smaller fish species, the largest challenges come from the varied dietary requirements, and most people, even aquaria management, have the common sense of leaving those species into the nature since there is a huge selection of fish that will live in aquariums very happily. Also most aquariums, at least over here, have a staff that is profoundly passionate about the well being of their animals. Of course we live in a less than perfect world when it comes to running a very costly display, but still, there's plenty of good there too.

I get the point of PETA, and while I certainly agree with a limited selection of their ideas, they've willingly positioned themselves to place where people who disagree with them and potentional symphatisers alike see them as a complete train wreck. Which is, at the end of they, pretty sad as world really needs more people who care about the well being of nature. But on its own it isn't really worth much unless these people also understand how to actually get their point across in a constructive manner.

 

[Sijjvra]

There is a great deal of SICKENING animal abuse in the world, including the US. Medical experiments/vivasection, people running dog fighting rings, animal hoarders, factory farming, etc.

I don't think the animals at Seaworld are amongst the "omg! most abused!" we need to focus on. PETA are hypocrites anyway. They want to FREE ALL THE CAGED ANIMALS when they don't realize most of those animals would not be able to survive in the wild any more. It's the same as tossing your pet dog out in the woods and yelling "BE FREE!". No, it'll go starve, get hit by a car, get hurt by a wild animal, catch diseases, etc.

PETA isn't exactly credible or logical when it comes to their little crusades. I'm as much for treating pets/farm animals/ zoo critters humanely as anyone with half a heart, but PETA's head honchos just in it for the money if you ask me.

 

[seventhson]

The Constitution - actually the Bill of Rights and Amendments since the Constitution itself documents the Federal Government and what it's allowed to do - applies to "persons" and "citizens." Animals are neither.

Neither are corporations (sorry for the derail)!

 

[Thrill-House]

There is a great deal of SICKENING animal abuse in the world, including the US. Medical experiments/vivasection, people running dog fighting rings, animal hoarders, factory farming, etc.

I don't think the animals at Seaworld are amongst the "omg! most abused!" we need to focus on. PETA are hypocrites anyway. They want to FREE ALL THE CAGED ANIMALS when they don't realize most of those animals would not be able to survive in the wild any more. It's the same as tossing your pet dog out in the woods and yelling "BE FREE!". No, it'll go starve, get hit by a car, get hurt by a wild animal, catch diseases, etc.

PETA isn't exactly credible or logical when it comes to their little crusades. I'm as much for treating pets/farm animals/ zoo critters humanely as anyone with half a heart, but PETA's head honchos just in it for the money if you ask me.

Agreed. Also, PETA has no problem using horrific events to their advantage.. the biggest example being that beheading in central canada a few years back. A mentally disturbed individual cut off the head of a fellow passenger in a greyhound bus, i believe in the province of Manitoba (could be wrong), and after eating the poor lads eyeballs infront children, he was finally taken into custody. And guess what the good folks of PETA did! They started a new ad campaign with the message saying something along the lines of "This kind of horrific event happens everyday to animals all over the world. Please, save the animals!".

It is this kind of BS that makes people hate PETA and not want to support them. I agree the animals should be treated with respect, but i refuse to support such careless organization like PETA. Plus i like a good steak.

 

[Gaius46]

Neither are corporations (sorry for the derail)!

Corporate personhood is well established in common law going back at least 500 years.

I don't know of any legal system that has ever granted animals legal rights - they've pretty much always been treated as property. Personally, I can't see how animals in general can be granted legal rights since they cannot meaningfully participate in society.

 

[boynamedsuse]

Corporate personhood is well established in common law going back at least 500 years.

I don't know of any legal system that has ever granted animals legal rights - they've pretty much always been treated as property. Personally, I can't see how animals in general can be granted legal rights since they cannot meaningfully participate in society.

So people who are mentally or physically handicapped or incapacitated (due to birth defects, disease, or accident) to the point they can no longer meaningfully participate in society should be dealt with as animals?

 

[aborgman]

Thoughts?

Thoughts...

Seaworld is a worthless exploitative piece of crap.

PETA are bleeding heart morons who anthropomorphize animals to a ridiculously silly extent.

The world would be better if both of them ceased to exist.

 

[aborgman]

On the contrary, they're highly adept at creating publicity. They want people to argue about the issues and they set out to deliberately court controversy in order to promote discussion that would never happen if they didn't make a point of operating the way they do. In this, they're very successful, so they are anything but stupid. I'm often surprised that so many people don't see this aspect.

Two points:

1) They're great at generating publicity
2) It ain't just for publicity - the morons really believe this crud.

 

[aborgman]

Granting animals other than humans some rights doesn't necessarily mean granting them the same rights. And nearly all animals already have some legal rights anyway in many countries including the USA - animal welfare provisions, for example.

Animal welfare provisions are protections granted by the government, not rights.

 

[aborgman]

To be honest, those who quite happily spout off about 'Orca burgers' or whatever are just as daft as the militants who think animals should be allowed 'constitutional rights'.

One difference...

The "Orca Burger" folks are joking. The "animals should be allowed Constitutional rights" folks are serious.

 

[aborgman]

We have a moral duty to reduce suffering as possible,

No, we don't.

 

[Gaius46]

So people who are mentally or physically handicapped or incapacitated (due to birth defects, disease, or accident) to the point they can no longer meaningfully participate in society should be dealt with as animals?

Severely disabled people still participate in society, albeit in a very limited fashion, through guardians.

Animals as a class can not participate in society.

 

[boynamedsuse]

Severely disabled people still participate in society, albeit in a very limited fashion, through guardians.

Animals as a class can not participate in society.

Through their guardians? Sorry, I am not buying.

In the meantime, animals such as seeing eye dogs, guard dogs, police & military dogs, dogs that detect explosives or drugs on a criminal investigation, are still just animals and cannot participate in society. The list does not end with dogs, but anyone with an open mind can get the idea.

My point is that your comments are emotional rationalizations, not logical. They boil down to, "we will do what we want because we can." May I suggest that the possible consequences of bassybill's scenario make more logical sense to someone who buys into the mentality of superior evolution?

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.

 

[Tituscrow]

No, we don't.

Yes, we do.