PETA releases statement opposing Pokemon

[Anarion]

This Forbes article (http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2012/10/08/peta-pokemon-animal-abuse/) details PETA's statements, with a fair bit of (well-deserved imo) criticism.

Apparently PETA believes that Pokemon encourages animal abuse and glorifies cruel treatment of animals. Here's a quote from the article.

The way that Pokémon are stuffed into pokéballs is similar to how circuses chain elephants inside railroad cars and let them out only to perform confusing and often painful tricks that were taught using sharp steel-tipped bullhooks and electric shock prods

I have to say that I personally find this hilarious because of how misinformed it is. PETA obviously didn't bother to actually do any research on Pokemon Black and White, considering they specifically deal with the relationship between humans and Pokemon.

[The Succubus]

Oh silly, silly PETA...what are we going to do with you? *shakes head sadly*

I still remember when Wrath of the Lich King came out and they took over Howling Fjord to protest against a quest that involved killing walruses.

I don't think an area has ever been grinded as hard as that zone was that day.

[Flickerdart]

Considering that Pokemon learn moves completely on their own, I don't see how they could possibly be "confusing"...

[North_Ranger]

PETA have their heads up their keisters. News at eleven. :smalltongue:

[Yawgmoth]

PETA saying something ridiculous in order to grab attention for their outdated, dying, and destructive "organization"? Well color me shocked, that never happens!

[Kindablue]

It seems like they did the research to me. (http://www.screwattack.com/news/peta%E2%80%99s-latest-game-about-protecting-innocent-pok%C3%A9mon)

[TheFallenOne]

Oh silly, silly PETA...what are we going to do with you? *shakes head sadly*

I still remember when Wrath of the Lich King came out and they took over Howling Fjord to protest against a quest that involved killing walruses.

I don't think an area has ever been grinded as hard as that zone was that day.

Has there been a reaction to the Cow Level? :smallbiggrin:

The sad thing is that those idiots at PETA bring disrepute and ridicule upon a legitimate task. Long as you don't go well beyond the point as reason and sanity with it.

[Mutant Sheep]

It seems like they did the research to me. (http://www.screwattack.com/news/peta%E2%80%99s-latest-game-about-protecting-innocent-pok%C3%A9mon)

Their PETA game has Ash talking about putting Pikachu inside a Pokeball and never caring about Pika's feelings. The whole reason Pikachu sits on Ash's shoulder all the time is that Pikachu DOESN'T get put inside a pokeball due to... reason. :smallsigh::smalltongue:

[Zevox]

Oh silly, silly PETA...what are we going to do with you? *shakes head sadly*
Ignore them like we always do?

Seriously, does anyone care what that bunch has to say? All I've ever seen out of them is over-the-top publicity stunts that everyone mocks for a day or two and then forgets about.

Zevox

[Kelb_Panthera]

Anybody ever see the episode of Penn & Teller's BS where they harpoon lampoon mercilessly mock these morons with truth?

I was already ignoring them, but wrote them off completely as hypocritical wing-nuts after seeing that.

Edited for freudian slip. :belkar:

Edit 2: that wasn't the right word either.

[Mauve Shirt]

Has no one here linked to the actual game (http://features.peta.org/pokemon-black-and-white-parody/)? It's hilarious.

[The Glyphstone]

And remarkably cathartic to be able to repeatedly electrocute the Professor-expy when none of their moves can do damage to you.

[tensai_oni]

The most hilarious thing here is that Team Plasma (read: the antagonists) in Black and White has goals eerily similar to PETA, and just as misinformed. And yet they didn't seem to notice.

[GolemsVoice]

That game, man. That game!

[Coidzor]

Yeah, they do that.

[Tectonic Robot]

The game is actually pretty fun!

[GolemsVoice]

Sadly, yes. The Pokemon were hilarious. And Mudkipz was a surprise, if strange.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I like to think of PETA, if an organization can be defined as a single person, as functionally insane with slight psychopathic tendencies. It can live in society as an eccentric, doing good and/or bad like everyone else, but there's always that little voice in the back of the head...

[enderlord99]

The most hilarious thing here is that Team Plasma (read: the antagonists) in Black and White has goals eerily similar to PETA, and just as misinformed. And yet they didn't seem to notice.

Actually, I think they did notice: otherwise, they would have attacked the franchise much earlier.:smallsigh:

[Tebryn]

And remarkably cathartic to be able to repeatedly electrocute the Professor-expy when none of their moves can do damage to you.

Which just makes their message even more amusing. Hurting humans? A-OK. Hurting animals? HOW DARE YOU :smallfurious:

[Emperor Ing]

Poor Professor Juniper. She makes a perfectly logical and reasonable argument about how humans and pokemon should be partners and vice-versa, and she gets burned/electrocuted/blasted/etc. Seems legit.

[Wyntonian]

Some part of me wonders if they realize how ridiculous they appear to the rest of society.

Then I return to teaching my Labrador how to play Silver Version on my old SP.

[snoopy13a]

Has no one here linked to the actual game (http://features.peta.org/pokemon-black-and-white-parody/)? It's hilarious.

Wow, it's amazing.

I'm not a Pokemon fan, but that parody is great. After all, Pokemon exist for their own reasons :smalltongue:

[Coidzor]

Wow, it's amazing.

I'm not a Pokemon fan, but that parody is great. After all, Pokemon exist for their own reasons :smalltongue:

That's some Death is not Zombies dialogue right there.

[Anarion]

Has no one here linked to the actual game (http://features.peta.org/pokemon-black-and-white-parody/)? It's hilarious.


The most hilarious thing here is that Team Plasma (read: the antagonists) in Black and White has goals eerily similar to PETA, and just as misinformed. And yet they didn't seem to notice.

Okay, I give them more credit for doing research than I thought, since the game included them talking about the Team Plasma bait and switch. I kept waiting for a Stockholm Syndrome joke to come up, but they disappointed me there.

The big irony there is that playing that game involves controlling pokemon, and since I decided to mess around trying out moves, I also caused 2/4 pokemon to die faint. So, violent resistance at its finest really.

[Emperor Ing]

This might seem off-topic, but am I the only one that thinks the parody pokemon logo is totally badass? :smalltongue:

I wonder when PETA (People for the Eating of Tasty Animals) is gonna release a statement about Pokemon.

[Coidzor]

They also let you name the pokemon you acquire. Which is pretty fail given the context and message.

Now if they'd had it be a bait and switch... It actually would've been almost appropriate for their method of preachiness... Oh, wait, I think I just figured out why they didn't do it.

[The LOBster]

The creepiest part is that I could very easily see a psycho like Ghetsis wearing a cloak made out of Pokemon skins. I mean, the guy's arguably the most monstrous villain Nintendo has ever crafted - While Ridley, Ganon, Ghirahim, Smithy and many of the abominations Kirby fights are truly, unrepentantly evil, none of them were abusive, manipulative parents as far as we know.

[Traab]

Their PETA game has Ash talking about putting Pikachu inside a Pokeball and never caring about Pika's feelings. The whole reason Pikachu sits on Ash's shoulder all the time is that Pikachu DOESN'T get put inside a pokeball due to... reason. :smallsigh::smalltongue:

Pikachu hates being in his pokeball and refuses to go into it. Apparently thats a thing with some pokemon, they just hate the pokeballs. Though thats the only time I recall it coming up in the entire series and all its spinoffs. Even while being attacked by an entire flock of bloodthirsty birds. Ash is trying to protect him and sacrifice himself to keep pikachu safe, so pikachu saves the day and they are best friends. Truly, ash is a monster.

Honestly, they did a decent job, ham handed conversations aside, up until they brought ash into it. Thats the guy that in the series tends to go out of his way to save, protect, and aid any random pokemon he meets. Most of his pokemon tend to be like rescue dogs from a shelter, they were mistreated in some way and he helps them out so they willingly join him. *cough* charmander *cough* How many times has he taken a direct hit in order to protect his pokemon from harm? I know that I have lost track.

[Dr.Epic]

I think PETA's just trying to lose all dignity it once had these days. Like remember that issue they had with Mario and the raccoon suit? And now this? They do realize there are actual animal cruelties in this world and not those in (children's) entertainment?

What's next? We gonna hear about how Finn from Adventure Time is inhuman for how he treats Jake? Or that Mordecai and Rigby are forced to do backbreaking labor for the park? Either wouldn't surprise me.

[Eldan]

Batman. Clearly, Batman is next.

[Traab]

I think PETA's just trying to lose all dignity it once had these days. Like remember that issue they had with Mario and the raccoon suit? And now this? They do realize there are actual animal cruelties in this world and not those in (children's) entertainment?

What's next? We gonna hear about how Finn from Adventure Time is inhuman for how he treats Jake? Or that Mordecai and Rigby are forced to do backbreaking labor for the park? Either wouldn't surprise me.

I think the problem there is they are running out of new animal cruelty irl stock videos they can spam all over the place, so now they are attacking "the culture that glorifies animal cruelty" or some such thing. Figuring that by showing us how everything from the music we listen to, the games we play, and the movies we watch condition us to accept that animal cruelty is ok, they can somehow make us more willing to stop cruelty in all its forms.

[CoffeeIncluded]

I think PETA's just trying to lose all dignity it once had these days. Like remember that issue they had with Mario and the raccoon suit? And now this? They do realize there are actual animal cruelties in this world and not those in (children's) entertainment?

What's next? We gonna hear about how Finn from Adventure Time is inhuman for how he treats Jake? Or that Mordecai and Rigby are forced to do backbreaking labor for the park? Either wouldn't surprise me.

Three...Two...One.

Now PETA, if you'll excuse me, I've got a Snivy to train by having him beat up Audinos.

Did I mention Jade never goes hungry?

[Ninja_Grand]

Oh PETA, you can do so much good, yet you use your powers for evil.


1.) Most Pokemon ENJOY the pokeballs. It has been theorized that their is a Pokemon home in there.
2.) Most Pokmon dont fight. They are pets, roommates, coworkers, and in some cases, religious leaders.
3.) Many trainers will give them selves up to save their Pokemon
4.) Pokemon rangers. That is all.

Please PETA, Play nice and we will stop saying you stand for People Eating Tasty Animals.

[Anarion]

Please PETA, Play nice and we will stop saying you stand for People Eating Tasty Animals.

I dunno, bacon isn't going to stop being a thing.

[Emperor Ing]

Would now be a bad time to mention PETA's insanely high euthanasia rate with stray animals?

[Skeppio]

Would now be a bad time to mention PETA's insanely high euthanasia rate with stray animals?

It's never a bad time to call them out on that.

[Renegade Paladin]

I think PETA's just trying to lose all dignity it once had these days.
They had dignity? :smalltongue:

[Traab]

They had dignity? :smalltongue:

Not precisely, but at least you could respect them for their batspit crazy obsessions with animal care, right up until all the different stories broke about things like them slaughtering more shelter animals than anyone else in the country, or one of their big wigs using medicine that was animal tested, despite the near hysterical levels of insistence that noone should ever use anything that had to do with animal exploitation in any way. Basically, until the hypocrisy started sprouting, you could at least sort of respect their goals and those working on them. Now they are just crazy double standards having oddballs that keep working hard to top their latest level of crazy.

Im still waiting on my full scale softcore to hardcore porn anti fur posters. We already had near playboy level film shoots of various top ten bodies, lets take the next step peta, you know, for the sake of the animals. Oh dear god, I just came up with two disturbing slogans based on pornographic comments that actually would fit right in with peta styles. Naturally, I wont share them with you, as I have no wish of being banned, but dear lord I almost collapsed a lung laughing.

[bluewind95]

... Someone should remind the people at PETA that humans are animals too. I mean, come on. It's, like, a 3rd grade thing.

[Thajocoth]

Some of their other photo shoots hit rather niche demographics... Such as "All animals have the same parts."

[Kelb_Panthera]

Some of their other photo shoots hit rather niche demographics... Such as "All animals have the same parts."

Wait... Did they actually say that? That's just not true. Not unless arthropods and fish don't count.

[Thajocoth]

Wait... Did they actually say that? That's just not true. Not unless arthropods and fish don't count.

Yeah, they should've said "mammals", given what they were protesting. It's pics of women with dotted lines on their bodies where you'd cut a cow or pig to butcher it, usually with words on them labeling the various cuts.

[Tebryn]

Wait... Did they actually say that? That's just not true. Not unless arthropods and fish don't count.

Don't call them fish. They're Sea Kittens.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Don't call them fish. They're Sea Kittens.

Bah, I just call them sashimi.

Is peta a militant vegan group now? When the blazes did that happen? :smallconfused:

[Emperor Ing]

Is peta a militant vegan group now? When the blazes did that happen? :smallconfused:

Well to the best of my knowledge they aren't militant. They do, however, whine and moan whenever anyone other than themselves violates the standards that no society could ever live up to if it is to be survivable, let alone have some semblance of freedom. Which is pretty much why they don't live up to their own standards.

I doubt i'm alone in thinking they're worse than Team Plasma.

[Xondoure]

Given the number of references packed into that five minute game, and the absolute absurdity to which Ash is taken, I personally think they knew exactly what they were doing, and that this was a labor of love more than anything.

That or someone at PETA hired a few game designers to make pokemon look bad, and the game designers being fans of the franchise turned it back around in a quite amusing way.

[Scowling Dragon]

Well thats because their organization hides a dark secret.

Their not really for pets at all. They find tamed animals an abomination.

Thus their actual longterm plans are to return the animals into the wild. Thats why they care so little for the animals under their care. They find them monsters anyway.

[Lord_Gareth]

Just played the game. Woke up my toddler because I laughed too hard.

[Emperor Ing]

I played through LostSilver and Amnesia The Dark Descent, and I am too terrified to play that game. :smalltongue:

[GnomeFighter]

To be fair to PETA by all accounts there high rates of animal euthinasia is because they are willing to take in animals that other shelters won't and have a habit of euthanising animals for other shelters and vets they think use the "wrong" method.

On the other hand, they would get much futher if they would just focus a little. Swinging wildly from "have a rescue dog not from a breeder!" to "keeping pets is evil" just puts people right off them. If they would stick to the kind of stuff the RSPCA do (Animal shelters, re-homeing, rescue, lobbying for basic animal welfare) and keeped away from the militant vegan "meat is murder" they would get allot more done.

Also, stunts like this make them look just stupid. Ash is a prime example of a good pet owner. How many times dose he get hurt buy his pokimon (Pika shocking him for example) and never once dose he do more than look exasperated? Aslo, I can't belive they focus on the pokiballs when they could have complained about it encoraging dog fighting.

[Eldan]

Well thats because their organization hides a dark secret.

Their not really for pets at all. They find tamed animals an abomination.

Thus their actual longterm plans are to return the animals into the wild. Thats why they care so little for the animals under their care. They find them monsters anyway.

The bolded part is, indeed correct. The conclusion, however isn't. They don't want to return tamed animals to the wild. From what I read of that, the find that abominable too. They want to kill them, instead, so that the wild won't be spoiled by them. Or something.

[Astrella]

Seeing as portrayed as one of the bad guys just completely destroyed their message even more. He's the character that probably treats pokemon the most as equals in the entire show!

Oh, aside from all that don't forget how horrible a lot of their campaigns are with regards to women. (And it isn't limited to women.) Hint: You don't help by transferring exploitation to another group. :/

[The Succubus]

... Someone should remind the people at PETA that humans are animals too. I mean, come on. It's, like, a 3rd grade thing.

The only problem with that is the acronym "People Eating Tasty Animals" doesn't really apply anymore. Unless you're Hannibal Lecter.

[polity4life]

PETA isn't entirely that off-base with this complaint; it's just mostly off-base. The Pokemon games are essentially a Michael Vick simulator, save for drowning Pokemon that end up losing your bet. Please note the tongue in the cheek.

But everyone is right here. This is just silly on their part. However, this silliness will not top their Mario 3 tanooki suit fiasco (http://features.peta.org/mario-kills-tanooki/).

[Winter_Wolf]

I saw PETA in the thread title and I clicked on it. Like a fatal car crash, I feel bad for looking but it's almost impossible to avert my eyes.*

Also: Really PETA? Pokemon? :confused: I'm pretty sure what you're smoking ain't legal in any country.

Also: if we didn't keep domesticated cows, wouldn't they all become extinct? I'd really like to know, because as far as I'm aware, in the US at least there simply aren't any wild cows (buffalo and bison don't count). Please won't someone think of the cows! :smallbiggrin:

*I actually did see a car crash into the leading edge of a median at an intersection and then flip up into the air and onto its roof. A thing of terrible beauty.

[Killer Angel]

However, this silliness will not top their Mario 3 tanooki suit fiasco (http://features.peta.org/mario-kills-tanooki/).

Mario, you monster! :smallfurious:

[Tengu_temp]

Oh PETA, you can do so much good, yet you use your powers for evil.

I'm not sure if PETA ever did much good for animals - it was the work of others, less insane animal welfare groups. All PETA does for them is hurt their reputation by making people think all animal welfare groups are similar.

[Elemental]

Also: if we didn't keep domesticated cows, wouldn't they all become extinct? I'd really like to know, because as far as I'm aware, in the US at least there simply aren't any wild cows (buffalo and bison don't count). Please won't someone think of the cows! :smallbiggrin:

Well... Their direct ancestors, the Aurochs was extinct by the 1600s. Centuries before that in most countries.
And the European Forest Horse (Tarpan) was extinct by the early part of the 1900s, probably before that, and the other variety of wild horse which I can't spell was briefly extinct in the wild. The direct ancestor of domesticated dogs, wolves, have been driven from most of the world. Most varieties of wild donkeys have been driven extinct or are critically endangered...

[Misery Esquire]

Batman. Clearly, Batman is next.

He doesn't hand forge those batarangs. They are just metal covered bats. This is why they fly so well. He also kills a thousand bats every time his cape gets ripped so he can replace it. And he's forced all the bats out of thier natural cave-home so he can have a secret lab. For testing his knockout gas on the captured bats. And Alfred butchers the animals for Bruce's meals with a rusty cleaver.

The Joker is really just a reasonable animal care director.

[Traab]

To be fair to PETA by all accounts there high rates of animal euthinasia is because they are willing to take in animals that other shelters won't and have a habit of euthanising animals for other shelters and vets they think use the "wrong" method.

On the other hand, they would get much futher if they would just focus a little. Swinging wildly from "have a rescue dog not from a breeder!" to "keeping pets is evil" just puts people right off them. If they would stick to the kind of stuff the RSPCA do (Animal shelters, re-homeing, rescue, lobbying for basic animal welfare) and keeped away from the militant vegan "meat is murder" they would get allot more done.

Also, stunts like this make them look just stupid. Ash is a prime example of a good pet owner. How many times dose he get hurt buy his pokimon (Pika shocking him for example) and never once dose he do more than look exasperated? Aslo, I can't belive they focus on the pokiballs when they could have complained about it encoraging dog fighting.

You have a point, but still you have to consider the fact that PETA basically takes in a lot of animals to their shelters, then kills an average of 85% of them. They arent trying to find good homes, they arent trying to care for them, they are basically wiping out as many pets as they can get their hands on, and not just because some are suffering from incurable ailments. There are even attempts to get the peta "shelters" renamed to slaughterhouses, because thats what they really are. Its a place where animals go to die. Calling them animal shelters is pretty much a direct lie as they arent going there to be sheltered, cared for, or to find a home, they are going there to be killed "humanely". Thats not even going into the scandals that have erupted of things like peta employees dropping animal carcasses off by the dozens in nearby shopping lot dumpsters. Whats the matter guys? Run out of places to legitimately store the bodies of all the pets you have killed?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Mario goes through, on average, 8 worlds of gameplay killing turtles, anthropomorphic mushrooms, moles, and an assortment of other reptiles and they call him out on the tanuki suit? It's not even an actual pelt, it's a magical manifestation that draws from the tanuki of folk-lore rather than having anything to do with the actual animal. Thats why you get it from a golden leaf and can turn into a statue.

:smallyuk: Gods these guys are insane.

[Absol197]

Mario goes through, on average, 8 worlds of gameplay killing turtles, anthropomorphic mushrooms, moles, and an assortment of other reptiles and they call him out on the tanuki suit? It's not even an actual pelt, it's a magical manifestation that draws from the tanuki of folk-lore rather than having anything to do with the actual animal. Thats why you get it from a golden leaf and can turn into a statue.

:smallyuk: Gods these guys are insane.

CollegeHumor made a pretty good parody video based on exactly that premise. Once I'm off work, I'll try to dig it up, or you can find it yourselves!

[bluewind95]

The only problem with that is the acronym "People Eating Tasty Animals" doesn't really apply anymore. Unless you're Hannibal Lecter.

It's OK. Animals are allowed to eat other animals. I'm pretty sure they aren't asking lions to become vegetarians.

[Skeppio]

It's OK. Animals are allowed to eat other animals. I'm pretty sure they aren't asking lions to become vegetarians.

PETA is. :smallsigh:

[Absol197]

It's OK. Animals are allowed to eat other animals. I'm pretty sure they aren't asking lions to become vegetarians.

And therein lies the problem (or at least, the biggest one) I have with PETA's stance - eating other creatures is part of the natural order of things, and helps keep the balance of the world. Humans are not above that order, as much as we would like to think we are.

Also, they're very kingdomist. When I used the word "creatures" above, I don't just mean animals. I mean anything that's alive, including plants, fungi, and microorganisms. What makes animal life so special? Why are we any better than the other organisms that share our world? I would argue that we're not, and assuming we are is just discrimination based on the fact that other animals are more similar to us than the trees and grass and bacteria.

Or maybe that's just me. It's probably just me.

[Doc Kraken]

It's OK. Animals are allowed to eat other animals. I'm pretty sure they aren't asking lions to become vegetarians.

Not quite, but... (http://www.peta.org/issues/companion-animals/meatless-meals-for-dogs-and-cats.aspx)

[Elemental]

Not quite, but... (http://www.peta.org/issues/companion-animals/meatless-meals-for-dogs-and-cats.aspx)

They do realise that trying to feed a cat a vegetarian diet will result in them going blind and slowly dying in agony?
I mean... They're PURE carnivores. The only plant material they regularly consume is a bit of juice from grass to get folate.

[nedz]

Last time I checked: cats were obligate carnivores, which means that they must eat meat.

But it is apparently possible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obligate_carnivores#Obligate_carnivores) to synthesise the missing chemicals vitamins.

[bluewind95]

Thing is... even if it is possible to feed cats on plant filler and vitamin pills... why do such a terribly unnatural thing? I thought they were all for the natural order and whatnot?

[Elemental]

I'm in agreement. A cat requires meat to live, but it is possible to replace that with a synthetic supplement.
But why? That's not exactly respecting the cat's wishes.

[Traab]

PETA is. :smallsigh:

You saw that episode of south park too? That poor lion!

[Asta Kask]

I'm in agreement. A cat requires meat to live, but it is possible to replace that with a synthetic supplement.
But why? That's not exactly respecting the cat's wishes.

I don't think the cat cares, to be honest. It wants food that smells right. As a cat owner I want food that he'll eat and doesn't make him sick. I don't care how synthetic it is.

[Dusk Eclipse]

You saw that episode of south park too? That poor lion!

Wasn't that a Futurama episode?

[Traab]

Wasn't that a Futurama episode?

Oopps, you are right, my bad. I got them mixed up. Could have sworn it was that vote or die episode.

[The LOBster]

I lost all respect for PETA when they openly rejoiced at Steve Irwin's death. I mean, c'mon; Steve did more to help animals than PETA ever did, and he didn't just limit himself to cute, cuddly mammals and birds.

[TheFallenOne]

... Someone should remind the people at PETA that humans are animals too. I mean, come on. It's, like, a 3rd grade thing.

If we executed people by pulling them apart with horses, PETA would complain about the cruel abuse of said horses.

[Isolder74]

We all know that My Little Pony is next. The writing is on the wall.

It surprises me that they haven't already.

[Wyntonian]

We all know that My Little Pony is next. The writing is on the wall.

It surprises me that they haven't already.

Bronies would be the only people on the planet that could love and tolerate PETA.

I can't decide if that means that they're more highly evolved than us, or simply crazy.

[Dusk Eclipse]

I lost all respect for PETA when they openly rejoiced at Steve Irwin's death. I mean, c'mon; Steve did more to help animals than PETA ever did, and he didn't just limit himself to cute, cuddly mammals and birds.

Wait... wut? Seriously? They rejoiced at the death of Steve Irwin... it is not like I respected them before; but this sinks them even lower on my scale.

[Thajocoth]

The only problem with that is the acronym "People Eating Tasty Animals" doesn't really apply anymore. Unless you're Hannibal Lecter.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, right? (Just as long as that's what the person wishes to happen to their body.)



Mario goes through, on average, 8 worlds of gameplay killing turtles, anthropomorphic mushrooms, moles, and an assortment of other reptiles and they call him out on the tanuki suit? It's not even an actual pelt, it's a magical manifestation that draws from the tanuki of folk-lore rather than having anything to do with the actual animal. Thats why you get it from a golden leaf and can turn into a statue.

:smallyuk: Gods these guys are insane.

Golden leaf? I have no idea where you're getting that. The Tanooki Suit comes from a little Tanooki Suit icon, just like the Hammer Bros & Frog Suits come from icons that look like their suits. Leaves give you the Raccoon Suit and come in green & brown, depending on the level.

[Emperor Ing]

Bronies would be the only people on the planet that could love and tolerate PETA.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSBezwopAZOB4-Cic5lN7DIqkI_mPKS30KF6bRcZ7QfQ94LW3uP
I am, of course, speaking for myself.

[scurv]

Is it shameful to admit that I like peta protest pictures?

[Eldan]

He doesn't hand forge those batarangs. They are just metal covered bats. This is why they fly so well. He also kills a thousand bats every time his cape gets ripped so he can replace it. And he's forced all the bats out of thier natural cave-home so he can have a secret lab. For testing his knockout gas on the captured bats. And Alfred butchers the animals for Bruce's meals with a rusty cleaver.

The Joker is really just a reasonable animal care director.

Next, Spiderman. He clearly just molests spiders to gain their powers for his own selfish ends.

[Kindablue]

Is it shameful to admit that I like peta protest pictures?

If it is I don't want honor. (http://www.sinuousmag.com/2009/08/design-gone-wrong-nia-long-for-peta-ad-is-a-flop/battlestar-galacticas-jamie-bamber-peta_ad/)

[Aedilred]

I know it's not what they meant, but on the subject of "meatless meals, this made me laugh:

The flesh of animals who fall into one of the categories of the four D’s—dead, dying, diseased, or disabled—is what often goes into pet food.
I would hope that any canned food being fed to my cat is from a dead animal. Rather than a live one.

Also:

One Food and Drug Administration (FDA) specialist says that the unrendered protein in food may come from heads, feet, viscera, and other animal parts.
This is just stupid. I happily eat animal head, feet and viscera (offal). It's just playing to the squeamishness of people who'll only eat steak and is entirely irrelevant.

Finally:

Pet food has also been recalled during mad cow disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), outbreaks because of the risk that contaminated meat might have been processed into the food.
Well, indeed. I seem to remember that during the mid-90s BSE scare here, human food was recalled too.

That's just one paragraph. I'd read the rest, but my head is already bleeding from the number of times I've banged it on the desk, and I worry if I read the article any further I'll lose enough brain cells to start agreeing with it.

[Traab]

Next, Spiderman. He clearly just molests spiders to gain their powers for his own selfish ends.

If he hadnt been harassing that spider, it never would have bitten him. Clearly marvel supports animal abuse by telling kids to torture animals because it might grant them super powers.

[Ravens_cry]

While it's 'just' a kid show/game/card game/ media empire, I think PETA may have a point here.
A world where kids capture semi-sentient creatures to fight there battles for them is pretty messed up if you think about it, especially when you consider that, canonically ,there is basically no other source of meat, yet meat is seen eaten.

[North_Ranger]

While it's 'just' a kid show/game/card game/ media empire, I think PETA may have a point here.
A world where kids capture semi-sentient creatures to fight there battles for them is pretty messed up if you think about it, especially when you consider that, canonically ,there is basically no other source of meat, yet meat is seen eaten.

Any kids' show is messed up, if you really start hitting the moral panic button.

My Little Pony has an entire kingdom so estranged from the natural cycle of things they freak out because things grow on their own in the Evergreen Forest. Oh the horror!

Or how about enslaving AND eating sentient beings in the Flintstones? "Meh, it's a living", goes your steak.

And Donald Duck is a straight-out exhibitionist 'cause he wears no pants, dammit!

[Eldan]

You're right.

I propose we immediately go outside and arrest all the animals for not wearing pants.

[Dusk Eclipse]

[semi-off-topic]Pokémon are completely sentient and in some cases even smarter than most humans (particularly psychic types with Alakazam boasting an IQ score of more than 5K). It has been alluded to that pokémon (on a general basis) are OK with trainers capturing them. It has been implied that the bond formed between a pokémon and it's trainer is what allows them to become stronger much faster than in the wild. Also many entries in the Pokédex imply the existence of normal wildlife (when they are comparing the pokémon to real-world creatures) the only difference being that the top predators are obviously pokémon. [/semi-off-topic]

On-topic: As a Brony, as much as it shames me to admit, I wouldn't love PETA if they did attack MLP, heck I can barely tolerate them and mostly because I try to avoid them as much as possible.

[Nameless]

Bronies would be the only people on the planet that could love and tolerate PETA.


Speaking as a "Brony"; I seriously wish PETA would just shut the buck up and get their heads out of their hypocritical self righteous flanks. :smallannoyed:

defaq did I just play? (http://features.peta.org/pokemon-black-and-white-parody/)

[Siosilvar]

Bronies would be the only people on the planet that could love and tolerate PETA.

I can't decide if that means that they're more highly evolved than us, or simply crazy.

A little of column A, a lot of column B.

But then again, I've been laughing at PETA since I first heard of them, so maybe I'm not the best sample.

[Anarion]

Bronies would be the only people on the planet that could love and tolerate PETA.

I can't decide if that means that they're more highly evolved than us, or simply crazy.

I think you may be slightly misunderstanding the love and tolerance expression. I'm a brony and I highly disapprove of PETA and I would be quite angry if they started attacking My Little Pony. But I would still love and tolerate them in the sense that I understand that expression. I distinguish it as being angry at their misguided actions, rather than hating them as people.

[The LOBster]

While it's 'just' a kid show/game/card game/ media empire, I think PETA may have a point here.
A world where kids capture semi-sentient creatures to fight there battles for them is pretty messed up if you think about it, especially when you consider that, canonically ,there is basically no other source of meat, yet meat is seen eaten.
On the first topic, it's pretty clear in most of the supporting media that Pokemon like battling, and most trainers are respectful and kind to the Pokemon they catch. Take Ash, for example - sure, the kid isn't book smart, but he's pretty much the kind of trainer any Pokemon would dream of having.
As for the second topic, normal fish have been seen in early episodes. It's possible that there are still some normal animals around on farms and in the wild even though most "regular" animals were probably extirpated in most habitats by Pokemon. Either that, or most humans (and caught Pokemon) in the Pokemon world eat substitution meat, which is something PETA would commend :smalltongue:

[Anarion]

Also worth keeping in mind that plenty of pokemon run away from battle and we've seen in the show that when they don't want to be caught, they don't have to fight. Most of the time, they fight because they want to and are happy to be caught by a trainer skilled enough to beat them.

[Emperor Ing]

It occurs to me that pokemon aren't forced to fight under threat of cattle prods or whips. If they didn't want to fight, they wouldn't, even if brought in an obvious battle setting. I admit I don't watch the show so I don't know how often this happens, but I would think semisentient (Yes, that's right. I said "sentient." Problem?! :smallfurious:) to supersentient (oh my, I said it again!) creatures have decision-making skills.
Furthermore, pokemon-abusive characters are usually the bad guys. Team Rocket and Team Plasma come to mind, such as the rivals from RBY and GSC, the good guys. Exceptions obviously exist, but that's the trend.

And as a brony i've already given my input in loving and tolerating PETA. Not gonna happen. :smalleek:

[Ravens_cry]

Any kids' show is messed up, if you really start hitting the moral panic button.

My Little Pony has an entire kingdom so estranged from the natural cycle of things they freak out because things grow on their own in the Evergreen Forest. Oh the horror!

Or how about enslaving AND eating sentient beings in the Flintstones? "Meh, it's a living", goes your steak.

And Donald Duck is a straight-out exhibitionist 'cause he wears no pants, dammit!
FLintstones, definitely yes.
With Donald Duck, his feathers are his pants. Wookie Rule and all that.
I'm not saying there should be some moral panic, but for once I can see where PETA is coming from. I can understand the motives if not the act.

[North_Ranger]

With Donald Duck, his feathers are his pants. Wookie Rule and all that.


Then why does he always cover his nethers when he is caught naked? :smalltongue:

http://image.retrojunk.com/607_244b0c93b2.jpg

[Emperor Ing]

I'm not saying there should be some moral panic, but for once I can see where PETA is coming from. I can understand the motives if not the act.

I can't. PETA is comparing apples to oranges here. The experience is mutually beneficial to the pokemon and the trainer, and if pokemon don't want to fight they don't have to. This aspect is just never reflected in the games. From a game design standpoint this makes sense.

[The Glyphstone]

FLintstones, definitely yes.
With Donald Duck, his feathers are his pants. Wookie Rule and all that.
I'm not saying there should be some moral panic, but for once I can see where PETA is coming from. I can understand the motives if not the act.

The Wookie Rule was disproved by the Holiday Special...Chewbacca's just an exhibitionist pervert.:smallcool:

[John Cribati]

While it's 'just' a kid show/game/card game/ media empire, I think PETA may have a point here.
A world where kids capture semi-sentient creatures to fight there battles for them is pretty messed up if you think about it, especially when you consider that, canonically ,there is basically no other source of meat, yet meat is seen eaten.

Pokemon are full-on sentient actually. They seem have the capacity to understand English Human language, and other things like that. The thing is that Pokemon who do not want to be caught do not approach trainers. Simple as that. Call it stockholm syndrome or whatever, but this is a relationship that has gone on for countless millennia. Pokemon approaches person. Person catches Pokemon. Best Friends!

Hey, Pokemon eat other Pokemon, so why not people? Especially if you fall under the belief that People evolved (in the Darwinian sense, not the Pokemon sense) from Pokemon.

[Traab]

It occurs to me that pokemon aren't forced to fight under threat of cattle prods or whips. If they didn't want to fight, they wouldn't, even if brought in an obvious battle setting. I admit I don't watch the show so I don't know how often this happens, but I would think semisentient (Yes, that's right. I said "sentient." Problem?! :smallfurious:) to supersentient (oh my, I said it again!) creatures have decision-making skills.
Furthermore, pokemon-abusive characters are usually the bad guys. Team Rocket and Team Plasma come to mind, such as the rivals from RBY and GSC, the good guys. Exceptions obviously exist, but that's the trend.

And as a brony i've already given my input in loving and tolerating PETA. Not gonna happen. :smalleek:

If they dont want to fight in the show, they either just sit there, attack their trainer, or refuse to follow orders. That was the big thing with charmander after it started evolving. Stinking ungrateful bastard started refusing to listen to ash, ever. He had to basically trick charmeleon and charizard into fighting, and even then it wouldnt listen to him on what to do. Yeah buddy, you are welcome there for that whole, "saving your life from the rain, saving you from an abusive trainer that abandoned you, and helping you grow that freaking strong. No no, you dont have to do anything but lie there and attack me with fire."

[snoopy13a]

The Wookie Rule was disproved by the Holiday Special...Chewbacca's just an exhibitionist pervert.:smallcool:

Bringing in the Holiday Special? Things have taken a turn for the worse :smallamused:

Anyway, Wookiees exist for their own purposes.

[Ravens_cry]

Then why does he always cover his nethers when he is caught naked? :smalltongue:

Same reason a cucumber that wears nothing wears a towel when he gets out of the shower and looks embarrassed when he encounters other similarly nude vegetables.
It's funny! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtHr7gluh08)
Flintstone's might have that excuse, but Pokemon does not.

[Coidzor]

If they dont want to fight in the show, they either just sit there, attack their trainer, or refuse to follow orders. That was the big thing with charmander after it started evolving. Stinking ungrateful bastard started refusing to listen to ash, ever. He had to basically trick charmeleon and charizard into fighting, and even then it wouldnt listen to him on what to do. Yeah buddy, you are welcome there for that whole, "saving your life from the rain, saving you from an abusive trainer that abandoned you, and helping you grow that freaking strong. No no, you dont have to do anything but lie there and attack me with fire."

The power of repression.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I lost all respect for PETA when they openly rejoiced at Steve Irwin's death. I mean, c'mon; Steve did more to help animals than PETA ever did, and he didn't just limit himself to cute, cuddly mammals and birds.
They what! Hey look, there went the line. This statement has finally sparked hatred in me for peta.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, right? (Just as long as that's what the person wishes to happen to their body.)




Golden leaf? I have no idea where you're getting that. The Tanooki Suit comes from a little Tanooki Suit icon, just like the Hammer Bros & Frog Suits come from icons that look like their suits. Leaves give you the Raccoon Suit and come in green & brown, depending on the level.

It was late, I got the full tanuki suit and the partial tanuki suit a little blurred. The full version does indeed come from the icon in its shape, but it also lets you turn into a statue. The partial just gets you the ears and tail, but does indeed come from a gold leaf.

Teach me to keep posting when I'm that tired. :smallredface:

[Ravens_cry]

Pokemon are full-on sentient actually. They seem have the capacity to understand English Human language, and other things like that. The thing is that Pokemon who do not want to be caught do not approach trainers. Simple as that. Call it stockholm syndrome or whatever, but this is a relationship that has gone on for countless millennia. Pokemon approaches person. Person catches Pokemon. Best Friends!

Hey, Pokemon eat other Pokemon, so why not people? Especially if you fall under the belief that People evolved (in the Darwinian sense, not the Pokemon sense) from Pokemon.

My thoery is that humans are colonists who crashed landed and the animals (most likely in the form of frozen embryos) did not survive. Their legacy is in the naming conventions for Pokemon and certain phrases used.
Pokemon are the native inhabitants of the planet.

[Tebryn]

Flintstone's might have that excuse, but Pokemon does not.

Why exactly? What's wrong with a totally fictional universe and games made for fun be any less safe from scrutiny than any other medium merely because it's funny? Have we seen a sudden spike in animal abuse cases world wide since the release of Red and Blue? Because then...then you'd have some grounds to suggest that there -might- be something more sinister at hand. I don't have the data myself, but then again I'm not the one suggesting that Pokemon is somehow raising our children to be abusive monsters who only look at animals as either fodder for our tables or for our amusement. I know I've been playing the games since the very first day they were released to the public in the states to today and I haven't somehow gained the urge to beat animals "BECAUSE DOCTOR OAK SAID SO".

I won't call it moral panic, but I'll certainly not call it sensible to somehow suggest that Pokemon supports animal abuse. Just the same way that Grand Theft Auto doesn't increase the risk someone's going to go murder a ton of hookers, do blow and steal cars. Or that players of Dead or Alive have any tangible taste in video games. If you're going to go after one game for what it may have a message about then...you should be going after other games that actually do promote violence openly within the games themselves.

[Katana_Geldar]

What about Dinotopia? The dinosaurs ate used as mounts and beasts of burden, but the dinosaurs are sentient and get on five with humans.

[Emperor Ing]

In regards to Pokemon, The Lavendar Town Syndrome creepypasta has more merit than animal abuse claims. Come on. :smallsigh:

[Ravens_cry]

What about Dinotopia? The dinosaurs ate used as mounts and beasts of burden, but the dinosaurs are sentient and get on five with humans.
Exactly, there is an arrangement, a covenant between dinosaurs and humans. Did pokemon ask to be enslaved? No, they are taken from the wild by force. The fact they try to escape is proof enough of that.
I'm not saying it's as big an issue PETA is making it Gods no, overreacting is basically their watchword, their primary mode of operation, but gods, we still should stop and think about these things.

[Traab]

Exactly, there is an arrangement, a covenant between dinosaurs and humans. Did pokemon ask to be enslaved? No, they are taken from the wild by force. The fact they try to escape is proof enough of that.
I'm not saying it's as big an issue PETA is making it Gods no, overreacting is basically their watchword, their primary mode of operation, but gods, we still should stop and think about these things.

Except most dont in the series. Too be fair, most of the time the pokemon we see ash catch are plot devices like the head of the squirtle squad, or the abused charmander he saves, and they choose to come with him willingly. But honestly, the only one I can think of offhand that wasnt taken willingly, was probably caterpie, and after evolving fully, ASH LET HIM GO. His butterfree found a mate, and instead of saying, "Sucks to be you, lets go find us a pokemon to beat up" Ash, sobbing his eyes out, let him go so he could be happy and have a family or whatever.

Basically, the entire point of ash in the series to show us that friendship is magic. He makes friends with all his pokemon, helps them achieve THEIR goals, like primape wanting to be a butt whuppingly strong fighter, or charizard and his trip to the reserve, pikachu wanting to kickass forever without evolving for whatever reason he had, things like that. Yes he wants to be the greatest pokemon trainer in the world, but he also cares about what his pokemon want to do and helps them do it. In return, they get crushingly powerful, able to ignore type disadvanatges at will, and help ash become a champ.

[TheFallenOne]

Now we're already talking about Pokemon... Is the main character really called Ash Ketchum? Is that honestly supposed to be his real name, not an alias he took when he decided to go into Pokemoning? Because such a cheap, lame pun in the name of the main character would be just sad...

[Tebryn]

Now we're already talking about Pokemon... Is the main character really called Ash Ketchum? Is that honestly supposed to be his real name, not an alias he took when he decided to go into Pokemoning? Because such a cheap, lame pun in the name of the main character would be just sad...

His real name is Red.

Exactly, there is an arrangement, a covenant between dinosaurs and humans. Did pokemon ask to be enslaved? No, they are taken from the wild by force. The fact they try to escape is proof enough of that.
I'm not saying it's as big an issue PETA is making it Gods no, overreacting is basically their watchword, their primary mode of operation, but gods, we still should stop and think about these things.

Then you haven't played the games. Because, especially the Legendaries, all choose the player in agreement of strength to follow them. When ever people approach you, they mention how strong your bond is with your pokemon and the love they feel for you. There are moves that are actually dependent on how much they love you as well.

[John Cribati]

Basically, the entire point of ash in the series to show us that friendship is H4X.

FTFY:smallsmile:

[Prime32]

Plus, given the animistic nature of the Pokémon world, it's implied that in the past you had things like

The humans were cold and hungry. And then the king of the Tauros, taking pity on them, appeared to form a contract. Humans would be allowed to take the meat and hides of Tauros to feed themselves and keep warm. In exchange, they would spread tales of the greatness of the Tauros tribe, with expressions such as "as strong as a Tauros". As well, if a Tauros warrior approached a human seeking to become stronger, the human (after proving himself worthy) would be obliged to take on that Tauros as a student and friend.
(just look at the library in DPP, where humans are told to thank the spirit of the Pokémon after they eat it)

EDIT:

Now we're already talking about Pokemon... Is the main character really called Ash Ketchum? Is that honestly supposed to be his real name, not an alias he took when he decided to go into Pokemoning? Because such a cheap, lame pun in the name of the main character would be just sad...His name in Japanese was Satoshi (a fairly normal name). In English they had to come up with something that had three syllables.

[Coidzor]

Exactly, there is an arrangement, a covenant between dinosaurs and humans. Did pokemon ask to be enslaved? No, they are taken from the wild by force. The fact they try to escape is proof enough of that.
I'm not saying it's as big an issue PETA is making it Gods no, overreacting is basically their watchword, their primary mode of operation, but gods, we still should stop and think about these things.

What are you talking about? I've not run into pokemon trying to escape, even in the anime.

The best explanation for a wild pokemon battle is that you run into one and it attacks you. Yes, some wild pokemon run away from battle, but you know what happens when a wild pokemon beats your pokemon?

You're beaten unconscious and robbed.

[The Glyphstone]

I like to think you instead get eaten by the wild Pokemon, and after a fee is deducted from your bank account, a clone with up-to-date memory scan is activated.

[Lord_Gareth]

I like to think that you wake up in a ramshackle doctor's office with a deep voice gloomily saying, "Pokemon battles. Pokemon battles never change."

[MikelaC1]

I applaud PETA's actions and would urge them to move forward.
For instance, they should definitely deal with that evil, sadistic hunter Elmer Fudd and his unholy obsession with shooting rabbits.
They could also move to stop the horrible cruelty perpetuated on domestic cats by Tweety Birds, and Spike & Chester.
And then there are the constant sexual assualts mounted by Pepe Le Pew that must be stopped.
Not to mention the totally undefendable actions of corporations that constantly sell arms and ammunition to Wile E. Coyote.

[Coidzor]

I like to think you instead get eaten by the wild Pokemon, and after a fee is deducted from your bank account, a clone with up-to-date memory scan is activated.

Sadly less morbid than thinking about what the pokemon would do with the money...

[Dusk Eclipse]

Now we're already talking about Pokemon... Is the main character really called Ash Ketchum? Is that honestly supposed to be his real name, not an alias he took when he decided to go into Pokemoning? Because such a cheap, lame pun in the name of the main character would be just sad...

Yep, it actually worked pretty well for the English dub of Pokémon 2000, even if it did make Ash more of a chosen one than the original.

[Anarion]

I like to think you instead get eaten by the wild Pokemon, and after a fee is deducted from your bank account, a clone with up-to-date memory scan is activated.

I like this. It also implies that Pokemon centers have some sort of clone holding tanks I guess. That's interesting. I wonder why the human clones are all stored in Pokemon centers.


Sadly less morbid than thinking about what the pokemon would do with the money...

I think the PETA game answers this one. Obviously, the pokemon take the money to buy paper and clipboards for all their petitions.

[The Glyphstone]

I like this. It also implies that Pokemon centers have some sort of clone holding tanks I guess. That's interesting. I wonder why the human clones are all stored in Pokemon centers.


They're just general all-purpose hospitals, but are branded as 'Pokemon centers' because the majority of their cloning tanks are used to replicate replacement Pokemon after they've "fainted" in battle.

[Dusk Eclipse]

10 Gp says there is (or will be) a fanfic based on that premise.

[Wyntonian]

I think the PETA game answers this one. Obviously, the pokemon take the money to buy paper and clipboards for all their petitions.

Not to mention signs and red paint to dump on people wearing fur coats.

[Karoht]

Apparently PETA believes that Pokemon encourages animal abuse and glorifies cruel treatment of animals. Here's a quote from the article.
"The way that Pokémon are stuffed into pokéballs is similar to how circuses chain elephants inside railroad cars and let them out only to perform confusing and often painful tricks that were taught using sharp steel-tipped bullhooks and electric shock prods"

Anyone else notice that when PETA puts out some kind of notice, they speak in really long run-on sentences? It's like they start out with one issue, and in the process of arguing it, get sidetracked by 3 other issues.

Why can they not juse some comma's to break up what they are saying at least? Are comma's now being mistreated too? Are commas being exploited "only to perform confusing and often painful tricks" of grammar?

[John Cribati]

Some guy plays the game so you don't have to (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI6UjNSe9BI) (language warning)

I think the attack names make the game itself So Bad It's Good, IMHO.

[Misery Esquire]

Just realised watching that video ; the beartraps when you're talking to Nurse Joy look like hearts.

LOVE IS A TRAP.

:smalltongue:

[Ravens_cry]

*sigh* PETA, even when I agree with you, I disagree with you.:smallyuk:

[Kelb_Panthera]

Some guy plays the game so you don't have to (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI6UjNSe9BI)

I think the attack names make the game itself So Bad It's Good, IMHO.

That was..... something.

You might want to put a tag on that about the youtube poster's language. It doesn't bother me any, but it could offend more sensitive viewers.

[Isolder74]

You know on the subject of PETA complaining about Circus Elephants riding in a railroad car on their list of 'Cruelties' against animals I must point out one minor detail.

That is no less room usually given to people on trains, cars, busses, or most other vehicles. I think the only mode of transportation where a passenger gets more room in general would be an ocean/cruise liner and personal jets.

[Asta Kask]

Exactly, there is an arrangement, a covenant between dinosaurs and humans. Did pokemon ask to be enslaved? No, they are taken from the wild by force. The fact they try to escape is proof enough of that.
I'm not saying it's as big an issue PETA is making it Gods no, overreacting is basically their watchword, their primary mode of operation, but gods, we still should stop and think about these things.

Yes. We should think about the MST3K Mantra. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MST3KMantra)

[INoKnowNames]

Shouldn't Nintendo be able to sue them? That's blatant copyright enfringement on their game right there. Not to mention they've done so little research as to what actually goes on in the games, especially considering the themes of the latest version.

Why does Peta thing animals deserve -more- rights than humans? I'm of the opinion that they deserve -equal- rights, but why -more-? Why does Peta hate humans?

[The Succubus]

Because we are lacking in several traits that make animals superior. We can't be sliced up, fried and made into rashers, we can't carry heavy people on our backs and carry them around, we can't produce the sort of milk that goes in tea and as for our attempt "lolhumanz"...it was frankly embarassing.

[Isolder74]

Also it might stem from the idea that in the natural world humans cheat by using technology to trump other animals where normally we'd be the dinner.

Ironically the very technology that makes any kind of Vegan lifestyle possible. On a natural level we can't survive without out some animal protein in our diet for nutrition reasons.

[John Cribati]

Why does Peta thing animals deserve -more- rights than humans? I'm of the opinion that they deserve -equal- rights, but why -more-? Why does Peta hate humans?

Because Humans are destructive to the environment and stuff. Seriously, I got into an argument with a vegan one time about a picture that compared Eating meat to slavery, rape, and the Holocaust. And in my angry rant, I yelled something to the effect of "go tell a lion to munch on some yams." The response was that lions actually contribute positively to the ecosystem, so it's alright for them to eat gazelles.

Also, consider the fact that humans don't even have equal rights yet. Until then, to be honest, I don't care about the "Animal Rights Movement." I mean, Michael Vick is still getting hate mail over the dogfighting thing, but the Steelers guy who raped three women is still out there getting cheered on.

[Karoht]

We destroy things. We hurt people. We hurt animals. We could chose a better way.
The problem is, PETA goes out of it's way to make sensational headlines rather than actually make some kind of meaningful impact. Take this attack on Pokemon. Isn't this a decade behind the times already? They dug up something to make a stink about to remain in the public eye.


There is also their stance on pets. No matter how good you are with your pet, no matter how happy your animal is living with you, PETA is against you even owning one. Period. It's rather difficult to empathize with an organization that claims to be pro-animal rights and yet euthanizes the majority of animals it rescues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PETA#Euthanasia_of_shelter_animals
They're also against things like seeing eye dogs.

[Mando Knight]

I like to think that you wake up in a ramshackle doctor's office with a deep voice gloomily saying, "Pokemon battles. Pokemon battles never change."

That's Pokémon Colosseum.

[Asta Kask]

We destroy things. We hurt people. We hurt animals. We could chose a better way.

Better for whom?

PETA was founded on the "Naturalistic Fallacy" - if it's natural it's good. We've all heard. Hopefully we all know that it's a fallacy.

As for animal rights - I'm uncomfortable with the blanket term "animal rights". There are animals that I would consider granting rights to - the Great Apes, for instance. But a medusa? A jellyfish? Treating all animals the same is, I think, a big mistake. They are so diverse.

[bluewind95]

Yeah. I mean... it's admirable to try to get people to treat animals better. But... equal... or greater rights? That's just... wrong and misguided.

Humans do destroy the ecosystem, yes. It's out of greed and ignorance. The latter can be fixed and thte former can be redirected into things that aren't destructive. Humans can also do wonderful things to an ecosystem. There have been several animal species that have been saved from extinction. Ecosystems that have been damaged have been sent on the way to repair. Even on our own urban setting, we do destructive things... and also good, amazing things.

Animals... they serve the ecosystem's purpose. They can also do horrible things to the ecosystem, like cats in Australia. And before someone goes and points out humans brought the cats into Australia... there are ecosystems less isolated that have also had invasive species come up and cause absolute devastation. Animals also do not have the same capacity to do wonderful things on the same scale we do. They lack the kind of intelligence and the tools required for that.

So if a lion is "allowed" to kill a gazelle to eat, I should be allowed to eat a cow because I'm part of a species that does the same things animals do... just on a different scale. And no, I don't necessarily have to kill the food I eat. Lions, after all, don't necessarily do it either. They separate tasks. Males defend territories, females find the food. That's how societies work. That human society is infinitely more complex doesn't really change the fact that it works like any other society: divided roles. So I'm well within my rights to eat a cow someone else killed.

Equal rights... I think they should have the right to be humanely treated, as we do. But equal rights... no. Definitely not. I love my cats. But I wouldn't want them voting(I think one of them would eat the voting paper). I also wouldn't want them having the "right" to a paid job. I also don't think they should be able to get married to people. Animals just don't have the capacity or tools to make use of the rights we have in our society.

So, to me, PETA doesn't seem admirable, even in its goals. It's too far from something that's actually practical or even really sane. The hypocrisy that drips from their cheering for the suffering or death of people while decrying the suffering (many times far less severe, due to the lack of full-on sentience of animals. Sometimes... understanding WHY you're suffering makes it that much worse) of other animals is outright disgusting to me. The fact that they want to "return to nature" but still live cozy in their city homes, and use that "evil technology" to make their statements is also hypocisy of the greatest caliber, especially when they also advocate going against nature by trying to make people vegans. We're omnivores. That's all there is to it. That they exploit women for their messages also disgusts me. They complain when such a thing is done to animals, and they do it to other animals (humans). And then there's the complete *ignorance* of the things they say. Like that article on vegan food for cats and dogs. No! Cats don't eat "plenty of plant matter"! 90% or more of their food has to be meat! The moment you have to start adding supplement pills to a diet... the diet is wrong. And yes, this applies to human diets, too.

So yeah. No. As far as I can see, they're not admirable. At all. Not even in their goals. If they were working towards actually humane treatment of all animals (humans included), then they'd be admirable. Instead, they have formed some kind of fairy tale and then they hold on to the most stupid things to attack reality (seriously? Pokemon?), making themselves the laughingstock of the world. THEY advocate the poor treatment of animals by taking away all seriousness from their message with their stupid stunts. If the most vocal group for the "proper" treatment of animals act this stupid... then the message becomes stupid in the eyes of many. And THAT undermines their "goals" far more than a silly game like Pokemon or Mario will ever do.

[Karoht]

Better for whom?We don't need to beat animals or force them into labor anymore, we have machines to do those tasks, so those animals are largely off the hook.
When certain new technologies come online (such as vat grown meat) we may not need to eat meat that actually came from a living breathing animal. So those animals are largely off the hook, along with quite a few environmental benefits to go along with it.
We could also eat more fruits and veggies, and choose to eat less meat or no meat, making such technologies less necessary. But that is a choice for everyone to make, not for PETA to demand.
It can be better for most animals without ruining the quality of life we enjoy.
We can chose better. Better for the animals and better for ourselves. But I am of the belief that the choice is personal, it should not be made or enforced for us.



PETA was founded on the "Naturalistic Fallacy" - if it's natural it's good. We've all heard. Hopefully we all know that it's a fallacy. The best poisons are natural ones. I'm aware of and acknowledge the fallacy.
I find myself often disgusted by the number of people who have valid medical degrees and Ph. D's who claim utter nonsense about the human digestive tract and our ability/inability to eat meat.
Fact-Canines are for eating meat. Ask a dentist.
Fact-Our digestive tract processes meat and veggies. Otherwise societies such as the Inuit who eat meat almost exclusively (fish, elk/cariboo, whale, seal/sea lion) would have died out from malnutrition centuries/millenia ago.



As for animal rights - I'm uncomfortable with the blanket term "animal rights". There are animals that I would consider granting rights to - the Great Apes, for instance. But a medusa? A jellyfish? Treating all animals the same is, I think, a big mistake. They are so diverse.It gets remarkably complicated. Part of why I do believe that choosing to leave nature alone as much as reasonably possible is a good idea. The less we meddle with nature, the less we have to worry about those rights.

Peta also sees everyone at extremes. A person who eats one serving of meat is villified as much as someone who eats meat with every meal. Teaching the benefits to even a reduction in meat consumption is a waste of time to them. It's all or nothing. Quit cold turkey or else.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Prove that we must stop the evilness of the Pokémon Trainer concept, looks how a trainer forces his pokemon to kill and eat another in one of this so called "non-lethal" pokémon battles. (http://www.dorkly.com/comic/45039/alakazams-amazing-ability)

[Mando Knight]

Fact-Canines are for eating meat. Ask a dentist.

Not quite. A large number of herbivorous mammals have canine teeth as well. (Notably, boar tusks are canines)

[Dusk Eclipse]

quick wikipedia check pegs boars as opportunistic omnivores.

[Karoht]

quick wikipedia check pegs boars as opportunistic omnivores.
Correct.
Also, many herbivores which have pronounced canines possess a digestive tract which typically can digest meat, suggesting that it was once part of their diet at some point.

Gorillas have pronounced canines. Yes, they can and do eat meat. Same with many other primates. Meat may not form the major portion of their diet, but they do have the digestive tract to support it.

My earlier remark of 'ask a dentist' should probably also be paired up with 'ask a palentologist' now that I think about it. And probably a few other experts.

[Asta Kask]

Sheep, cow and deer have all been observed eating meat.

[Traab]

We don't need to beat animals or force them into labor anymore, we have machines to do those tasks, so those animals are largely off the hook.
When certain new technologies come online (such as vat grown meat) we may not need to eat meat that actually came from a living breathing animal. So those animals are largely off the hook, along with quite a few environmental benefits to go along with it.

Might be worth mentioning, but I have to wonder how many of these beasts of burden and food animals would go extinct as soon as we stop caring for them. I mean, i dont see cows lasting long in the wild. Some would. I know feral pigs are pretty dang hardcore when they get loose. But what is PETA stance on animals that literally couldnt survive on their own? That have basically been selectively bred for certain traits, that have also crippled their ability to survive in the wild?

[super dark33]

Might be worth mentioning, but I have to wonder how many of these beasts of burden and food animals would go extinct as soon as we stop caring for them. I mean, i dont see cows lasting long in the wild. Some would. I know feral pigs are pretty dang hardcore when they get loose. But what is PETA stance on animals that literally couldnt survive on their own? That have basically been selectively bred for certain traits, that have also crippled their ability to survive in the wild?

"They will gain their abilitys back".

[Eldan]

Might be worth mentioning, but I have to wonder how many of these beasts of burden and food animals would go extinct as soon as we stop caring for them. I mean, i dont see cows lasting long in the wild. Some would. I know feral pigs are pretty dang hardcore when they get loose. But what is PETA stance on animals that literally couldnt survive on their own? That have basically been selectively bred for certain traits, that have also crippled their ability to survive in the wild?

From what I've heard? Kill them, since they are tainted by humans and would spoil the wild.

[Tebryn]

Might be worth mentioning, but I have to wonder how many of these beasts of burden and food animals would go extinct as soon as we stop caring for them. I mean, i dont see cows lasting long in the wild. Some would. I know feral pigs are pretty dang hardcore when they get loose. But what is PETA stance on animals that literally couldnt survive on their own? That have basically been selectively bred for certain traits, that have also crippled their ability to survive in the wild?

Right, it's one of the more amusing if a bit horrific bits that is never really brought up. If we get off our meat diet what are we going to do with the the millions of animals that we're no longer going to need? Even if they don't go full on extinct a lot of them are going to have to die. Whole sale slaughter is something PETA is against when it comes to animals but their whole stance more or less dictates that there's going to have to be one. The other is the body count using combines causes in small rodent and field animal population.

[Coidzor]

Right, it's one of the more amusing if a bit horrific bits that is never really brought up. If we get off our meat diet what are we going to do with the the millions of animals that we're no longer going to need? Even if they don't go full on extinct a lot of them are going to have to die. Whole sale slaughter is something PETA is against when it comes to animals but their whole stance more or less dictates that there's going to have to be one. The other is the body count using combines causes in small rodent and field animal population.

Clarification: They are only against slaughter when it is not PETA that is administering and executing the slaughter.


We don't need to beat animals or force them into labor anymore, we have machines to do those tasks, so those animals are largely off the hook.

We totally have not replaced the bomb-sniffing dog and sheepdog with machines. Nor have we really replaced the guard dog, and the day we replace morale-boosting animals with machine replicas is the day after our souls have died.

To say nothing of the seeing eye dog. We're working on giving sight to the sightless, but we ain't there yet.


Also it might stem from the idea that in the natural world humans cheat by using technology to trump other animals where normally we'd be the dinner.

If we didn't have technology we'd either be in the same place as chimps or just *be* chimps depending upon your school of thought, where it's only opportunistic crocs and Big Cats that would prey upon us.

Hardly so weak a position as you seem to believe.

[SDF]

the day we replace morale-boosting animals with machine replicas is the day after our souls have died.

Man, I have no idea what you are talking about here. I had a Furby, and he's back better than ever! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=650XF8seUmM)

[Katana_Geldar]

For all that PETA want us to become vegans, that sometimes just isn't possible for health reasons. I'm all for reducing meat consumption, but some people are just unable to go vegan for health reasons. That includes children and the elderly.

Makes me wonder about Natalie Portman's baby.

[Hiro Protagonest]

For all that PETA want us to become vegans, that sometimes just isn't possible for health reasons. I'm all for reducing meat consumption, but some people are just unable to go vegan for health reasons. That includes children and the elderly.

I know a guy who's allergic to chlorophyll. If he was a vegan, he'd have to eat potatoes and grains only.

[scurv]

Muscle density issues can arise from the vegan diet, I worked with one man who was vegan who could not lift 25 lbs. Now all said and done I have no issues with someone with a disability And I Can respect the lifestyle choice. But when he was expecting someone to be assigned to do all of his lifting...We began to have professional issues with keeping him employed productively.

I know there are ways to get the needed protein with out meat, But quite frankly for some people it does not work,

[Tebryn]

Clarification: They are only against slaughter when it is not PETA that is administering and executing the slaughter.


Right, I'm aware. It doesn't change the fact that a world view that expouses kindness to animals will, if they succeed in spreading their world view, endanger and outright slaughter tens of millions of animals. There are 15.8 billion chickens living on the planet as of 2002. What's going to happen to them? Cows? 1.8 Billion. Pigs? As of 2002 the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN numbers them at almost a billion. It was to point out the hypocrisy of their position.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Shouldn't Nintendo be able to sue them? That's blatant copyright enfringement on their game right there. Not to mention they've done so little research as to what actually goes on in the games, especially considering the themes of the latest version.

Why does Peta thing animals deserve -more- rights than humans? I'm of the opinion that they deserve -equal- rights, but why -more-? Why does Peta hate humans?

If nintendo wanted to, you're right, they have a very solid copyright infringement case. They've also got a decent case for libel/slander (I'm never sure which one of those applies to video).

As for animal "rights" peta and a number of other people/organizations tend to forget that rights are A) a social construct that isn't even equal in idea between different cultures, much less different species, and B) a thing that comes paired with responsibilities. You wanna give rights to animals that are productive members of society, be my guest, but make them proportional to the responsibility those animals are saddled with. Animals that exist outside of society get their rights from the law of nature; survival of the fittest, no caveats, no exceptions.

And if peta tries to take away my meat, I'm going mideval on their collective asses. Nevermind the health concerns, they're infringing on my rights to enjoy a freakin' meal. I'll "self-defense" the SoB's into a bloody paste.

[Dusk Eclipse]

If nintendo wanted to, you're right, they have a very solid copyright infringement case. They've also got a decent case for libel/slander (I'm never sure which one of those applies to video).

As for animal "rights" peta and a number of other people/organizations tend to forget that rights are A) a social construct that isn't even equal in idea between different cultures, much less different species, and B) a thing that comes paired with responsibilities. You wanna give rights


And if peta tries to take away my meat, I'm going mideval on their collective asses. Nevermind the health concerns, they're infringing on my rights to enjoy a freakin' meal. I'll "self-defense" the SoB's into a bloody paste.


^ This, just this. I don't hate on you for not-eating meat so leave me alone to enjoy my bloody steak in peace (pun not intended).

[Emperor Ing]

Although Nintendo certainly has a case, I think it would be a bad thing for Nintendo to even give a cease-and-decist order. In my opinion, the more people become aware of PETA's insanity the better. If nothing else, the lets-plays should go viral. :smallamused:

[The Second]

You know, if PETA had their way, Australia would be buried under rabbits and toads, Great Brittan would also be buried under rabbits, and feral hogs would be having a field day out in the United States pasture and farmland.

Then consider that populations on isolated island nations would suffer from lack of protein due to not being allowed to consume fish, nations with large populations would suffer the same issues because of a lack of affordable protein from canned fish, farm raised chicken and the like; certain areas where people actually depend on rats as a major part of their diet would suffer...

Lastly there's the group of people who WILL NOT give up their meat. I am part of that group. If your take meat out of the supermarket I'll go get my own, plenty of white tail deer out in this part of the world, not to mention feral hogs. Will they take away my hunting rights? Over my cold, dead body they will.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Although Nintendo certainly has a case, I think it would be a bad thing for Nintendo to even give a cease-and-decist order. In my opinion, the more people become aware of PETA's insanity the better. If nothing else, the lets-plays should go viral. :smallamused:

Agreed. The nintendo folk have better sense than to give that crap any creedance by acknowledging its existence anyway.

[Coidzor]

Right, I'm aware. It doesn't change the fact that a world view that expouses kindness to animals will, if they succeed in spreading their world view, endanger and outright slaughter tens of millions of animals. There are 15.8 billion chickens living on the planet as of 2002. What's going to happen to them? Cows? 1.8 Billion. Pigs? As of 2002 the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN numbers them at almost a billion. It was to point out the hypocrisy of their position.

Their only concern is with how to dispose of all of the bodies. I don't think they've managed to answer the question to their own satisfaction.


I know a guy who's allergic to chlorphyll. If he was a vegan, he'd have to eat potatoes and grains only.

Huh, I'd have figured that'd be lethal allergy. :smallconfused:

[Androgeus]

Although Nintendo certainly has a case, I think it would be a bad thing for Nintendo to even give a cease-and-decist order. In my opinion, the more people become aware of PETA's insanity the better. If nothing else, the lets-plays should go viral. :smallamused:

I dunno, I think the game may be covered under fair use as is a "non-profit educational" work, although some may argue with the educational part :smalltongue:

[Ravens_cry]

I dunno, I think the game may be covered under fair use as is a "non-profit educational" work, although some may argue with the educational part :smalltongue:
Satire and parody are pretty protected under copyright law I believe.

[Emperor Ing]

I...think discussing the nuances of law is coming close to breaking forum rules.

As i've said, I would like to see the game stay around for one reason or another, mostly because 1: It's pretty much free advertising for B&W2 (negative publicity is better than no publicity,) and 2: It generates mockery for and undermines PETA, which is always a plus.

[Karoht]

It's no different than when they released that super mario game about tanooki and the fur issue. I'm pretty sure all it served to do was make them a laughingstock, and spiked awareness and sales about the new super mario game for the 3DS.

[SDF]

As for animal "rights" peta and a number of other people/organizations tend to forget that rights are A) a social construct that isn't even equal in idea between different cultures, much less different species, and B) a thing that comes paired with responsibilities.

They aren't a social construct if you buy into the idea of natural rights, which most of western civilization is based on. Animal rights is often associated with a utilitarian philosophy, which makes total sense if you follow it to its logical end.

[Ravens_cry]

If they have the right to not be harmed by humans, wouldn't they have the right to not be harmed by other animals?
Should a wolf be prosecuted for hunting down a fawn?
Should Mittens get the chair for devouring Squeaker?
Should maggots be charged with defiling a corpse?
Should our white blood cells be arrested for murder (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgVPLNu_S-w)?
You take things to their logical conclusion, things get absurdum real fast.

[Hiro Protagonest]

If they have the right to not be harmed by humans, wouldn't they have the right to not be harmed by other animals?
Should a wolf be prosecuted for hunting down a fawn?
Should Mittens get the chair for devouring Squeaker?
Should maggots be charged with defiling a corpse?
Should our white blood cells be arrested for murder (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgVPLNu_S-w)?
You take things to their logical conclusion, things get absurdum real fast.

Nope, because apparently, humans are some abomination that disrupts the natural order of things, and the best we can do is all eat lab-grown nutrients while sitting in a space station so that we don't disturb the Earth.

The best part is, it's impossible to support a vegan lifestyle in a minimal-impact low-tech society, such as Native Americans (although the Cherokee were building walled settlements. Then again, their population was kept down because war was their favorite pastime). So to get to PETA's goal, we first have to invent all the stuff needed to leave the Earth. Oh, and we can't take any animals with us either, except maybe pets.

[Coidzor]

Nope, because apparently, humans are some abomination that disrupts the natural order of things, and the best we can do is all eat lab-grown nutrients while sitting in a space station so that we don't disturb the Earth.

The best part is, it's impossible to support a vegan lifestyle in a minimal-impact low-tech society, such as Native Americans (although the Cherokee were building walled settlements. Then again, their population was kept down because war was their favorite pastime). So to get to PETA's goal, we first have to invent all the stuff needed to leave the Earth. Oh, and we can't take any animals with us either, except maybe especially not pets.

Fixed that for you. IIRC, PETA's orthodoxy is that humans are virii and thus categorically immoral unless they buy into the movement.

[Isolder74]

When it comes to PETA their philosophy is that the only animal that mankind should have anything to do with is itself and half of them feel that is too much as that makes more humans which is just as bad.

In other words it's unless you eat Vegan and are part of their little clique then you don't deserve to live no matter how much Rover seems to like you.

[Asta Kask]

Fixed that for you. IIRC, PETA's orthodoxy is that humans are virii and thus categorically immoral unless they buy into the movement.

Peta's philosophy. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Na9-jV_OJI)

[Traab]

Peta's philosophy. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Na9-jV_OJI)

Only PETA involves more foaming at the mouth and spittle.

[Kelb_Panthera]

They aren't a social construct if you buy into the idea of natural rights, which most of western civilization is based on. Animal rights is often associated with a utilitarian philosophy, which makes total sense if you follow it to its logical end.

Natural rights? The only rights nature grants you are the right to kill and eat the creatures you're strong or clever enough to overcome, and the right to ultimately feed worms.

Everything else is man-made. You have whatever rights you have either because your government gives them to you, and hasn't pissed its populace off enough to cause a revolt, or from taking the rights you're willing and able to take for yourself by force, either individually or as part of an organization. The latter has been how most of the free world got the rights they have. If you don't believe me, read your people's constitution, if you have one, to a tornado or a bear that's bearing down on you, then come and tell us how it went.

Nature is an uncarring bastard that doesn't give two cp about your rights; see disease and disaster.

[Tebryn]

Nature is an uncarring bastard that doesn't give two cp about your rights; see disease and disaster.

How true. Every sound you hear in the forest, every bird chirp or animal call is made by a cold terrified parasite ridden creatures half starved and desperate to get laid.

[thubby]

i've always suspected that peta was actually an elaborate effort to troll people.

it's a real shame too, because a lot of legitimate and respectable groups like the humane society suffer because of the stereotype PETA perpetuates.

[North_Ranger]

How true. Every sound you hear in the forest, every bird chirp or animal call is made by a cold terrified parasite ridden creatures half starved and desperate to get laid.

Let's be honest here; a lot of the noises humans make are because we're hungry and horny, too.

Of course, humans tend to be noisiest when we're drunk off our asses.

[THAC0]

Natural rights? The only rights nature grants you are the right to kill and eat the creatures you're strong or clever enough to overcome, and the right to ultimately feed worms.

Everything else is man-made. You have whatever rights you have either because your government gives them to you, and hasn't pissed its populace off enough to cause a revolt, or from taking the rights you're willing and able to take for yourself by force, either individually or as part of an organization. The latter has been how most of the free world got the rights they have. If you don't believe me, read your people's constitution, if you have one, to a tornado or a bear that's bearing down on you, then come and tell us how it went.

Nature is an uncarring bastard that doesn't give two cp about your rights; see disease and disaster.

I could argue this but.. board rules. Anyway.

I'm kinda shocked that this has gotten six pages of comments. PETA isn't worth the brainbytes.

[Dusk Eclipse]

At least a page or two were spent discussing the sentience of Pokémon, now that does deserve the discussion:smallcool:

[Sutremaine]

It doesn't change the fact that a world view that expouses kindness to animals will, if they succeed in spreading their world view, endanger and outright slaughter tens of millions of animals. There are 15.8 billion chickens living on the planet as of 2002. What's going to happen to them?
If a law was drafted and passed within the lifespan of a chicken (or cow or pig), then any animals who were born after the start of the process but before the law was passed would become dead weight and would be killed if no-one was willing to take care of them until they died.

If the planet gradually turned away from the use of animals, then the chicken population would be reduced not by culling, but by not allowing the chickens currently alive to breed.

[Aedilred]

If a law was drafted and passed within the lifespan of a chicken (or cow or pig), then any animals who were born after the start of the process but before the law was passed would become dead weight and would be killed if no-one was willing to take care of them until they died.
A law of that nature would probably have a "date of effect" separate from the date of passing (as most laws do) to take account of the lifespan of contemporary domestic animals. Or a clause along the lines of "animals born after date x shall be <sterilised/whatever>". It would still take a while to work through - some domestic animals have very long lifespans. Even cats can live ~20 years.

(In fact, there's an interesting question-mark over the validity of wills/trusts for the well-being of some animals - particularly birds and tortoises - given their long lifespans. But this isn't the place for a legal debate.)

i've always suspected that peta was actually an elaborate effort to troll people.
I have long suspected this too. If so, they deserve some sort of lifetime achievement award.

I fear, though, that they're not.

[Tebryn]

Let's be honest here; a lot of the noises humans make are because we're hungry and horny, too.

Of course, humans tend to be noisiest when we're drunk off our asses.

I am under no delusion. We're animals, after all. We've merely stepped out of the plains of our lowly origin unto a larger stage but still bare the markings of it, as Darwin said best.

A lot of humans are also parasite ridden, cold and half starved. Alcohol just makes it all a little bit more bearable. Debatable as it is, beer was one of our greatest inventions and one of our worst.


If a law was drafted and passed within the lifespan of a chicken (or cow or pig), then any animals who were born after the start of the process but before the law was passed would become dead weight and would be killed if no-one was willing to take care of them until they died.

If the planet gradually turned away from the use of animals, then the chicken population would be reduced not by culling, but by not allowing the chickens currently alive to breed.

Sadly, the Law and a lot more of what I'd like to say to this goes way to close to forum rules. So I'll merely say...murder is murder and the targeted and marked extinction of over 17.8 billion living things is a travesty when they're merely being killed off because of "dead weight".

[Traab]

I could argue this but.. board rules. Anyway.

I'm kinda shocked that this has gotten six pages of comments. PETA isn't worth the brainbytes.

Its pretty much relentless mockery with a couple pages of arguing over the ethics of pokemon. I dont think anyone is seriously arguing in favor of peta.

[Coidzor]

Natural rights? The only rights nature grants you are the right to kill and eat the creatures you're strong or clever enough to overcome, and the right to ultimately feed worms.

Everything else is man-made. You have whatever rights you have either because your government gives them to you, and hasn't pissed its populace off enough to cause a revolt, or from taking the rights you're willing and able to take for yourself by force, either individually or as part of an organization. The latter has been how most of the free world got the rights they have. If you don't believe me, read your people's constitution, if you have one, to a tornado or a bear that's bearing down on you, then come and tell us how it went.

Nature is an uncarring bastard that doesn't give two cp about your rights; see disease and disaster.

So, for clarity's sake, are you saying you haven't read John Locke or that you dismiss him? :smallconfused:

He's totally worth a read if you haven't.

[Kelb_Panthera]

So, for clarity's sake, are you saying you haven't read John Locke or that you dismiss him? :smallconfused:

He's totally worth a read if you haven't.

Hadn't heard of him before your post, but after a bit of cursory research I dismiss him.

His ideas of natural human rights are predicated on the man-made construct that is civilized society. If there is no society, you have no rights, in other words. Locke himself acknowledges that in nature there is only the defense of self.

Rights are a concept, not something inherent to nature.

At least until and unless you blur or erase the line for where society and nature become seperate. If you consider a structured society part of the nature of man, then it gets a bit more grey, but in that case dominating other species is still an inherent right of man as a result of his nature, and the result of evolution.

[Scowling Dragon]

You know, I could give up steak, but I could not give up pets.

I love my Dogs too much.:smallfrown:

[Aedilred]

Hadn't heard of him before your post, but after a bit of cursory research I dismiss him.
Thank goodness for cursory research.

[hobbitkniver]

Peta did something stupid and obnoxious? I never could have imagined... oh wait, this kind of thing happens all the time. PETA is a joke and regardless of their actual beliefs, this kind of thing makes them a joke.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Thank goodness for cursory research.

Cursory research is better than no research.

I'm reading his work now, but I don't really expect I'll have a sudden change of heart.

Edit: A more thorough examination of his works only reinforces my initial impression. His entire thesis is based on the construct that is civilization, which he himself calls a departure from the natural state which is governed by its own law of survival of the fittest.

Btw, I'm not saying rights are a bad thing or superfluous in any way. Having rights is definitely better than not having rights and I'd fight to maintain/regain any rights I think I deserve if someone tried to take them. I'm just saying that considering rights as something that comes from, or is inherent to, nature is a fundamentally flawed idea if you consider nature and civilization to be seperate things.

[SDF]

If you keep reading Locke you'll learn that natural rights and the state of nature, while related, are not the same thing.

[Kelb_Panthera]

If you keep reading Locke you'll learn that natural rights and the state of nature, while related, are not the same thing.

I get that already. That's actually kinda my point.

The "natural" of natural rights is a misnomer, since they don't come from nature. Natural rights are the rights that a particular society sees as the most basic, fundamental, and somehow intrinsic rights that should never be violated. That doesn't make them any less a part of the culture that grants them or actually inherent to being a living creature. Alot of Locke's arguments also come from his views on morality, another social construct that has nothing to do with nature.

Don't get me wrong. They're fine works that should be given their due respect, IMO, but they don't even try to deny that rights are something that's a part of human civilization rather the part of nature.

After reading Locke's works, I think he'd probably be baffled by the notion of trying to apply the idea of natural rights to animals, much less the idea of extending any more rights than that to them.

[SDF]

I get that already. That's actually kinda my point.

The "natural" of natural rights is a misnomer, since they don't come from nature. Natural rights are the rights that a particular society sees as the most basic, fundamental, and somehow intrinsic rights that should never be violated.

Then you read it wrong. We have inalienable rights that are insecure in the state of nature. The role of government and society is to establish a system to secure - not grant - those rights.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Then you read it wrong. We have inalienable rights that are insecure in the state of nature. The role of government and society is to establish a system to secure - not grant - those rights.

Coming to a different conclusion isn't reading it wrong.

The idea that rights are inalienable or otherwise intrinsic is just that; ideology. Further, it still stems from a morality concept which is just as much a social construct as the rights themselves. Your rights are A) not inalienable, as countless regimes across the world throughout history have done more than an ample job of proving; there always have been, and still are places where you have only the rights you can take at gun or knife point; and B) not intrinsic, because otherwise they'd be observed by nature in -some- form; overriding instinct to not violate the rights of others for example, or having those rights respected by creatures on the same level of the food-chain.

Locke even hangs part of his argument on the concept of ownership; specifically the notion that one of your natural rights is the right to defend your property, and that your body and being belong to a deity; which isn't any more natural than rights or morality. Hell, even the idea that they're insecure in nature hangs on the concept of security, another human idea based on the concept of ownership.

Like I said, I can definitely buy into the social contract. I think if you're going to have a government, it's purpose should be to protect and support the people from outside aggression and natural disaster with no mind toward its own profit, but ultimately that has nothing at all to do with nature and everything to do with culture.

[Triscuitable]

PETA have their heads up their keisters. News at eleven. :smalltongue:

PETA quite literally have their heads up their arses. Film at eleven.

I'd pay to see film of that. :smallbiggrin:

[Asta Kask]

Then you read it wrong. We have inalienable rights that are insecure in the state of nature. The role of government and society is to establish a system to secure - not grant - those rights.


Coming to a different conclusion isn't reading it wrong.

Are you arguing about Locke's views or Kelb_Panthera's views?

[Aedilred]

Natural rights? The only rights nature grants you are the right to kill and eat the creatures you're strong or clever enough to overcome, and the right to ultimately feed worms.
Another way of expressing this, in a more abstract sense, would be that in nature you have the right to the product of your own labour (provided you are able to defend it).

That's at the core of Locke's political philosophy. In providing collective defence of the fruits of its citizens' labours, the state guarantees a right that's present, but limited, in the state of nature.

Personally, I take a fairly Hobbesian view of the state of nature - there are no inalienable rights, with the arguable exception of the right to self-defence which isn't permanently alienable, and the purpose of the state is to limit liberty to provide security - but I don't think Locke is entirely wrong, either.

[2xMachina]

You take things to their logical conclusion, things get absurdum real fast.

Logically, logic is absurd!

[snoopy13a]

The real question: would PETA support man-eating sheep?

[super dark33]

The real question: would PETA support man-eating sheep?

"oh no! its not healthy for the sheep!"

[snoopy13a]

"oh no! its not healthy for the sheep!"

It is actually somewhat related to the prior group of posts. There's a cookie (vegan cookie, of course) to the person who gets the reference first.

[Serpentine]

...Black Sheep?

[The Glyphstone]

...Black Sheep?

Black Sheep? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0779982/)

[Serpentine]

That is, indeed, the movie to which I referred.

[Coidzor]

We even have at least one user whose persona is inspired by that movie, IIRC.

[snoopy13a]

That is, indeed, the movie to which I referred.

That looks like an instant classic :smallsmile:

Nah, the man-eating sheep aren't literal.

Thomas More used the phrase "man-eating sheep" to describe the process of enclosure in England. Essentially, landowners and powerful tenants would expel peasants from the commons in order to make more money selling wool. As the displaced peasants often died, the sheep were "man-eating."

Locke's writings were used, in part, by landowners to justify enclosure (right to own property and all that). In part, because it was a centuries-long process (More lived roughly 100 years before Locke). Hence the connection between man-eating sheep and Locke.

[The Glyphstone]

They hunger for Baaaaaaaharains.

[Anarion]

They hunger for Baaaaaaaharains.

They hunger for a country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahrain)? :smalltongue:

[Kelb_Panthera]

Are you arguing about Locke's views or Kelb_Panthera's views?

I'm defending my views. Locke's already made his clear.

I'm saying that while, IMO, Locke's ideas are a good framework to base a government on, he's made a disingenious statement about where rights come from. I also think he did so deliberately. Remember that all political theorists must, by definition, be well versed in politics.

By saying that those rights are inherent he implied that a government denying those rights was taking something away, and in doing so garnered support by engaging people's distaste for having what they view as theirs threatened.

Had he been straightfoward and said that they were the fundamental rights of the liberalist ideology, it would've implied he was making it up, which he was, and it likely wouldn't have been quite as well recieved.

"Natural" rights are a relatively new idea, and they are an idea, that only came into being a few hundred years ago. Before that the only people that had any rights were rulers and the aristocracy that supported them. The rest of the populace only had as much freedom and privelage as they were allowed under their ruling regime.

Ultimately all rights, natural or otherwise, are just political philosophy. They're not and never have been something inherent to nature.

Again, I think that having rights is better than not having them and fully support the social contract as a framework for government. I'm just being honest about the fact that it's a philosophy, not a natural law. If it were a natural law then humans wouldn't be the only ones that recognize it. If you look at any other group of social animals you'll see that they're led by the strongest, smartest, or otherwise most capable member of the group that's able to seize and maintain power.

Man's laws are many and complex. Nature's law is singular and simple; survival of the fittest.

[Douglas]

Nature's law is singular and simple; survival of the fittest.
It's also tautological, as the only definition of "the fittest" that won't have countless exceptions is "those who survive".

[Ravens_cry]

It's also tautological, as the only definition of "the fittest" that won't have countless exceptions is "those who survive".
I was going to point this out. There are many ways to survive, mind is one of them. Nurturing can also be a viable strategy as can cooperation. Nature is more than just red in tooth and claw, though it certainly is.

[Boci]

It's also tautological, as the only definition of "the fittest" that won't have countless exceptions is "those who survive".

So the only law of nature is tautological. Is that a problem?

[Coidzor]

So the only law of nature is tautological. Is that a problem?

It's rather in keeping with the perversity of the universe, I find.

[Tebryn]

I was going to point this out. There are many ways to survive, mind is one of them. Nurturing can also be a viable strategy as can cooperation. Nature is more than just red in tooth and claw, though it certainly is.

Who said it wasn't exactly?

[Coidzor]

Who said it wasn't exactly?

One could certainly conclude that Kelb_Panthera was arguing from a worldview that assumed such.

[Aedilred]

Words
Well, yes, the law of nature, survival of the fittest, is tautological, because, as noted, it boils down to "do whatever you have to to survive."

This in turn can be divided into two parts - acquisitive and defensive. You acquire what you need to to survive, and you defend your acquisitions and your person against those who would threaten them.

I take an unsympathetic, Hobbesian view of the state of nature - which is basically a more detailed version of the "do what you have to to survive" model. Hobbes's theory is predicated on the idea that humans will be horrid to each other and the state has to eliminate the state of nature in order for society to work.

Locke's state of nature is similar, but he takes a progressive approach, and identifies the acquisitive part of the "law of nature" more clearly than Hobbes did. Locke's society is built around the principles of the laws of the state of nature and applying them in a relevant fashion to the social construct, rather than rejecting the state of nature as something to be avoided at all costs. It's an attempt to make civilisation work in accordance with human nature, rather than in opposition to it.

Of course, you could argue that it's "made up". But so is everything. So is the entirety of the human experience. Not just civilisation and language and rational thought: everything we perceive is filtered by our brain and we're presented with our own personal, largely fictionalised version of it. So unless we're going to take a Dadaist view of philosophy and politics and life, I just don't think it's a helpful road to travel. In fact, the idea of what is real, what is perceived, how these things originate, etc. is central to the Cartesian and empiricist schools of thought and forms the basis for much of the political philosophy that follows.

You are of course free to disagree, but the philosophy supporting it is rather more complex than seems to be being credited. I really would recommend reading more deeply, because I don't think you disagree with the early modern philosophers as sharply as you seem to think.

[Boci]

It's rather in keeping with the perversity of the universe, I find.

Redundancy results in a perverse universe? To elaborate, there are two uses for tautology.

Use 1. X is X and that is a fact of life.

Use 2. X is X, therefor I am right.

Use 1 is redudant, use 2 is fallacious. So logically, only the second use makes the world a worse place, and Kelb seemed, to me at least, to be using the first form, not the second.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I never said I disagree with the overall principle being espoused; the idea that a government's purpose should be to protect its people with no mind toward its own profit. It's a laudable and foward thinking view that I heartily agree with. I just think that if there is a division between nature and civilization, which I have to admit I'm not sure any such line does or should exist, then rights are part of civilization, not nature.

However, there's an argument to be made that the creation of civilization is a natural extension of the social instinct present in a number of animals, not just humans. If that's assumed to be the case then it makes no sense to give animals the same rights as people since rights, as something that is part and parcel of civilization, are a uniquely human evolution. Giving animals rights would be no different than giving them our hair or thumbs.

Don't mistake my meaning. I don't think any animal, human or otherwise, should be treated with needless cruelty, but showing another living creature compassion isn't, and IMO shouldn't be, the same as extending rights to it.

On the tautology of "survival of the fittest": so it's a tautological statement. So what? While there are many ways to achieve the fittness to survive, failure to achieve such in some way results in death and, if a species as a whole fails to achieve such fitness, extinction. Humans achieve such fitness largely by relying on social constructs, though some do so in the more classical fashion of beating what you need to survive out of the rest of nature.

[John Cribati]

Only on the GITP forums can we start a philosophical discussion in a thread about PETA being idiots.

[Coidzor]

Redundancy results in a perverse universe? To elaborate, there are two uses for tautology.

Use 1. X is X and that is a fact of life.

Use 2. X is X, therefor I am right.

Use 1 is redudant, use 2 is fallacious. So logically, only the second use makes the world a worse place, and Kelb seemed, to me at least, to be using the first form, not the second.

More that humanity's antics are evidence of it.

[Boci]

More that humanity's antics are evidence of it.

Your vagueness and large scope are not helping you get your point across, and you seem to be moving away from the original parameters of my question. Kelb made a tautological statement. They have acknowledged that it is tautological. So, what is the problem?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Only on the GITP forums can we start a philosophical discussion in a thread about PETA being idiots.

Ain't it great! :smallbiggrin:

And better still, it can be a civil discussion instead of a flame-war. This place is awesome.

[Emperor Ing]

I wonder what PETA's position is on the Mystery Dungeon series.

[TheCountAlucard]

It appears no one's mentioned some of the other hypocrisies of PeTA. For instance, that they themselves staged some of the graphic movie clips they use? That one of a trapper skinning a fox alive? The trapper later admitted that PeTA paid him to do it, and that such behavior is nowhere near normal practices in the fur industry. 'cuz, y'know, it'd ruin the pelt, cause undue suffering to the animal, and the animal would probably injure the guy trying to skin it.

[Grue Bait]

I wonder what PETA's position is on the Mystery Dungeon series.

Well, I imagine that they prefer it to the regular games, but still think it's bad. Scummy humans becoming glorious 'mons, or something think that.

[Lord Raziere]

no, they'd hate the Dungeon series for giving pokemon civilization and money.

cause well look…. they live in a town. they have shopkeepers, bank, item storage, criminals…..the first has ruins of human buildings as places where some pokemon hang out, the second has a guild.

not to mention things like grimer, koffing, that trash bag pokemon in black and white….I bet you they don't such pollution themed pokemon. or magnemite, voltorb, any steel or whatever…..

[Emperor Ing]

It appears no one's mentioned some of the other hypocrisies of PeTA. For instance, that they themselves staged some of the graphic movie clips they use? That one of a trapper skinning a fox alive? The trapper later admitted that PeTA paid him to do it, and that such behavior is nowhere near normal practices in the fur industry. 'cuz, y'know, it'd ruin the pelt, cause undue suffering to the animal, and the animal would probably injure the guy trying to skin it.

In our defense (defense of the people not talking about their other hypocrisies) we are too focused talking about their present behavior and judging what they are presently doing on its merits. The merits, we can unanimously agree upon, are really really bad.
Besides, I already mentioned that PETA has an unreasonably high euthanasia rate for stray animals they take in. I think it was roughly 95% in 2011.

I'm just gonna go ahead and say that they aren't actually interested in animal rights, they're interested in control. They want to influence our behavior as consumers and decide how our society should function.

[Tebryn]

I think it's safe to say that Extremism in it's myriad forms generally becomes less productive the stronger their rhetoric becomes. And while I am against universal rules, this one seems to be more or less universal.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It appears no one's mentioned some of the other hypocrisies of PeTA. For instance, that they themselves staged some of the graphic movie clips they use? That one of a trapper skinning a fox alive? The trapper later admitted that PeTA paid him to do it, and that such behavior is nowhere near normal practices in the fur industry. 'cuz, y'know, it'd ruin the pelt, cause undue suffering to the animal, and the animal would probably injure the guy trying to skin it.

I was unaware of this particular hypocrisy, just as I'm beginning to get the impression that I've missed a few more of their real zingers.

Like I said before, I've mostly ignored them from when I first heard of them. They've always struck me as a bunch of wing-nuts that weren't worth giving much attention to. Some of what's been mentioned on this thread finally pushed me across the line from sneering apathy to genuine hatred though, and I'm not generally a hateful or otherwise strongly emotional person.

[Coidzor]

Your vagueness and large scope are not helping you get your point across, and you seem to be moving away from the original parameters of my question. Kelb made a tautological statement. They have acknowledged that it is tautological. So, what is the problem?

The statement itself falls underneath humanity's antics as a specific example of a general class of general silliness that nonetheless serves a purpose thus reminding me of the perversity of the universe.

[Tebryn]

The statement itself falls underneath humanity's antics as a specific example of a general class of general silliness that nonetheless serves a purpose thus reminding me of the perversity of the universe.

So what you're really saying is, that you're intentionally being obtuse when you could have more easily summed it up with "People are silly, another example of this screwed up universe."?

[Coidzor]

So what you're really saying is, that you're intentionally being obtuse when you could have more easily summed it up with "People are silly, another example of this screwed up universe."?

Well, yes, I suppose you could say that.

Mostly though I just like the word perversity and still am not quite sure what's wrong here.

...Am I misremembering the definition of perversity? I suppose I should double check.

[Tebryn]

Well, yes, I suppose you could say that.

Mostly though I just like the word perversity and still am not quite sure what's wrong here.

...Am I misremembering the definition of perversity? I suppose I should double check.

I think you've wrapped yourself up a bit. Boci asked what the problem was that the Law of Nature that being "Survival of the Fittest" being tautological. You then stated that it was in keeping with the perverse nature of the universe. Which doesn't answer the original question. What is wrong with the law of nature being tautological?

I fail, at least on your premise that the universe is at all perverse. If anything, the Universe isn't even uncaring. The Universe simply is. And we're a part of it. If the Universe cares for our existence, if it even has the ability to care which I doubt, it has shown it in a manner that is utterly indistinguishable to it not caring at all.

[Coidzor]

Well, there really wasn't much premise there.

Especially since I've realized that perversity wasn't the word I was thinking of at the time but I can't remember what I was going for either. x.x

Sorry about that.

[SDF]

Ultimately all rights, natural or otherwise, are just political ideology. They're not and never have been something inherent to nature.

I didn't really want to make another post about this topic, but I'll finally say that you can't prove and dismiss where rights do or don't come from. It's philosophy and metaphysics, not ideology. They are extremely and importantly different in this context. I'm picking up a lot of logical jumps and reductionist arguments about Locke, and more broadly the issue of human rights themselves. I think its dangerous to reduce rights simply to a man made construct by dismissing the alternatives outright.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I didn't really want to make another post about this topic, but I'll finally say that you can't prove and dismiss where rights do or don't come from. It's philosophy and metaphysics, not ideology. They are extremely and importantly different in this context. I'm picking up a lot of logical jumps and reductionist arguments about Locke, and more broadly the issue of human rights themselves. I think its dangerous to reduce rights simply to a man made construct by dismissing the alternatives outright.

Of course I can't prove where rights don't come from. You can't prove a negative. I've yet to see a compelling argument about where they -do- come from that doesn't rely almost entirely on moral philosophy. Moral philosophy being a social construct, if rights come from moral obligation, they come from a social construct and therefore must be a creation of man.

I've also never seen a compelling argument for where to draw the line between nature and civiliation at all. Looked at in a certain light, one could very well argue that civilization is, itself, something that developed as part of human evolution and is therefore natural, which would make any and all parts of society part of -human- nature. In that case, rights are only natural for humans.

That said, I have been misusing the term "ideology," under the mistaken belief that it was synonymous with philosophy. I looked it up after you asserted there was a difference and discovered my error. Now that I know the proper definition, I realize that "ideology" is definitely not what I meant. I'm sorry for the miscommunication on my part.

I should've said that rights are a philosophical idea and not any result of a natural law if you draw a distinction between civilization and nature. As such, I've made a correction to my previous post, to accurately reflect my meaning.

[Ravens_cry]

Depends on what sense you are using it in.
I have heard it used in that sense in at least informal contexts.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Depends on what sense you are using it in.
I have heard it used in that sense in at least informal contexts.

That's the problem that caught me. The word is used that way informally, but a discussion of this nature is no place for informal or vague usages. The subject matter is just too heavy.

[dehro]

I'd like to post a thoughtful contribution to this thread...but I've been listening to the awesome intro music to the parody game ever since I clicked on the link.
am I the only one who is looking around for a hat and a whip to grab, in order to chase down some ancient artifact?

[TheCountAlucard]

I was unaware of this particular hypocrisy, just as I'm beginning to get the impression that I've missed a few more of their real zingers.Like that they have literal domestic terrorists on their payroll? That they are against providing insulin for diabetics because years and years back, we were getting it from pigs? That they'd likewise be against a cure for AIDS if we had to test it on animals even once? :smallsigh:

[CoffeeIncluded]

It appears no one's mentioned some of the other hypocrisies of PeTA. For instance, that they themselves staged some of the graphic movie clips they use? That one of a trapper skinning a fox alive? The trapper later admitted that PeTA paid him to do it, and that such behavior is nowhere near normal practices in the fur industry. 'cuz, y'know, it'd ruin the pelt, cause undue suffering to the animal, and the animal would probably injure the guy trying to skin it.

...They what.

...

...............

I was aware of everything else. I didn't know this. This is just too much. I spent the past several minutes staring at my screen when I read this. Maybe it's just the last straw, but I can't think of anything to say to this. Except that I don't hate easily. And even the people I can't stand, I would still try to help out if they really needed. But if I was walking by a lake and saw these people drowning, and I mean the fanatics, not the people tricked into donating to what they believe is a good cause, I don't know if I would wade in to save them.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Like that they have literal domestic terrorists on their payroll? That they are against providing insulin for diabetics because years and years back, we were getting it from pigs? That they'd likewise be against a cure for AIDS if we had to test it on animals even once? :smallsigh:
I was aware of most of that. PETA really is a bunch of whack-jobs, by most accounts.

...They what.

...

...............

I was aware of everything else. I didn't know this. This is just too much. I spent the past several minutes staring at my screen when I read this. Maybe it's just the last straw, but I can't think of anything to say to this. Except that I don't hate easily. And even the people I can't stand, I would still try to help out if they really needed. But if I was walking by a lake and saw these people drowning, and I mean the fanatics, not the people tricked into donating to what they believe is a good cause, I don't know if I would wade in to save them.

Wade in to help 'em? Hell, I'd start taking pot-shots while standing along the shore to make sure there are no survivors.

I don't hate easily, but when I do it tends to intersect with my rather notable violent streak.

[lobablob]

I've yet to see a compelling argument about where they -do- come from that doesn't rely almost entirely on moral philosophy

Surely any argument about where rights come from would essentially be moral philosophy. If you want a compelling argument about rights and morality not being merely social constructs, I would recommend Natural Law and Natural Rights by Finnis.


Moral philosophy being a social construct, if rights come from moral obligation, they come from a social construct and therefore must be a creation of man.

The act and study of Moral Philosophy, in so far as it is a possible human activity and as it is something which is usually pursued socially, could perhaps be termed a social construct. However, Moral Philosophy as a discipline is distinct from and presupposes an object of study which is, loosely speaking, morality. The fact that the study of Moral Philosophy could be called a social construct does not mean that morality is necessarily a social construct, anymore than the fact that the study of Science could equally be called a social construct means that the things Science studies are social constructs.

It may well be morals are social constructs, but that conclusion doesn't follow merely from establishing that Moral Philosophy is a social construct as the two are distinct.

[Kelb_Panthera]

One can certainly argue that morality is part of human nature as an extension of the social instinct and compassion, but any philosophy based on morality is an inherently subjective construct based on the culture surrounding it. This is self-evident in the wildly varying moral value of an innumerable multitude of human behaviors throughout the world and its cultures and the way that the moral value of those behaviors has changed and continues to change over time.

It is for this reason that basing any idea on a moral philosophy means the idea is part of a social construct. By then building a construct around that idea you've created one social construct based on another. The very fact that there is more than one moral philosophy prevents any idea based on one from being universally true for all of humanity, much less all of the other creatures in nature.

Even the few things that most of humanity can nearly agree on; killing other people for example; are rife with exceptions and caveats in any given philosophy.

The notion that any idea that is inherently unprovable applies universally to all of humanity is absurd in itself, much less the assertion that such an idea is a natural law.

[Ravens_cry]

Like that they have literal domestic terrorists on their payroll? That they are against providing insulin for diabetics because years and years back, we were getting it from pigs? That they'd likewise be against a cure for AIDS if we had to test it on animals even once? :smallsigh:
What's worse is that MaryBeth Sweetland, a senior vice president of PETA, still takes insulin, despite allegedly being against it.

Frankly, I don't think they care even about changing society in their image.
What I think they care about is staying in the spotlight as much as possible.

[Xondoure]

So while I myself eat meat, I thought I'd come in and say a few kind words about vegans since it seems they're being treated a little harshly. I recognize most of this is an annoyance of being judged by people who choose that lifestyle, but that's really no reason to lash back out.

First there's the energy problem. To put it simply, meat is a lot more expensive in just about every way as opposed to vegetables. The reason is simple, the animals also have to eat. Thus when you eat meat you're part of a pyramid of energy where all of the corn necessary to keep that chicken alive is now also a part of sustaining you (for one maybe two meals.) Eating plant products directly cuts away a stepping stone on the pyramid and massively reduces energy expenditure. Thus becoming a vegetarian is about the fastest and most effective way of going green.

Second, while humans as omnivores is a natural part of evolution we do have a rather unique position in that by attaining this level of intelligence we are allowed choices most animals would not even think to make. On top of that many of us have the opportunity to not need to eat meat, whereas a predator in nature does not. Therefore claiming because it is okay for a wolf to kill for food makes it okay for a human (with access to other dietary options) to kill for food is a logical fallacy on two fronts.

TL;DR being a vegetarian is much better for the planet, and is a moral choice each of us has to make unlike other species. Now, not judging what choices you do make (as I said, I eat meat) but it's hard to argue that the world wouldn't be at the very least a more sustainable place if more people cut down on meat and other animal products.

[dehro]

What's worse is that MaryBeth Sweetland, a senior vice president of PETA, still takes insulin, despite allegedly being against it.



I'm against vegetables but they're good for you.. so I've learned to eat an acceptable number of them.
whilst there are many things PETA that are laughable and worthy of corner time with the donkey hat, this doesn't strike me as one..
If she needs it to survive, I'd rather have her alive and spouting idiocy than dead and a martyr to a cause that is otherwise misrepresented and mis-managed at best

[Kelb_Panthera]

So while I myself eat meat, I thought I'd come in and say a few kind words about vegans since it seems they're being treated a little harshly. I recognize most of this is an annoyance of being judged by people who choose that lifestyle, but that's really no reason to lash back out.

Let me start by saying I also don't have a problem with people making whatever dietary choice they please, as long as they don't try and tell me what I should be eating.


First there's the energy problem. To put it simply, meat is a lot more expensive in just about every way as opposed to vegetables. The reason is simple, the animals also have to eat. Thus when you eat meat you're part of a pyramid of energy where all of the corn necessary to keep that chicken alive is now also a part of sustaining you (for one maybe two meals.) Eating plant products directly cuts away a stepping stone on the pyramid and massively reduces energy expenditure. Thus becoming a vegetarian is about the fastest and most effective way of going green. As a provable statement, I have to ask for citations to back this up. My gut tells me there's something not quite kosher there. I'm not saying you're lying or making it up, but this sort of statement trips my propaganda sensor.


Second, while humans as omnivores is a natural part of evolution we do have a rather unique position in that by attaining this level of intelligence we are allowed choices most animals would not even think to make. On top of that many of us have the opportunity to not need to eat meat, whereas a predator in nature does not.

This -can- be true, but at current market values, at least in the US, an entirely animal free diet is more expensive than a traditional diet, and can consequently be out of reach for low-income families.
Therefore claiming because it is okay for a wolf to kill for food makes it okay for a human (with access to other dietary options) to kill for food is a logical fallacy on two fronts.

Here I have to disagree. Having alternative options, which is by no means guaranteed, doesn't change the fact that it's only natural for humans to eat meat. There are canines in your head for a reason and pretending they're not there doesn't change that. Choosing not to eat meat, while it is sometimes possible, is a step -away- from how nature built us.

In any case, the statement is based in the idea that killing another (non-human) animal is morally objectionable. If my morals don't match that, then there is no logical fallacy in the notion that it's okay to kill another animal for food. My personal morals say it's perfectly fine and the moral outlook of the majority of my culture agrees with that. You're the one committing a logical fallacy by basing part of your argument on the assumption that all people share the same moral values, when even a casual study of the differences between a few cultures shows this to be untrue; and basing another part of your argument on the idea that the lifestyle choice is a choice that all people in a given culture have, when this is also not the case.


TL;DR being a vegetarian is much better for the planet, and is a moral choice each of us has to make unlike other species. Now, not judging what choices you do make (as I said, I eat meat) but it's hard to argue that the world wouldn't be at the very least a more sustainable place if more people cut down on meat and other animal products.

As I said above, there are some notable holes in your assertion that need patching.

If someone wants to make a choice to refrain from animal products because their own moral philosophy or understanding of how it will impact the world for the greater good that's their perogative and I bear them no ill will for that choice.

I do, however, get annoyed when they get preachy and tell me I'm wrong for making a different choice, especially when they try and convince me with partially unsubstantiated and partially fallacious arguments. Note that this comment isn't directed at you personally. All of the arguments I've heard for switching to veganism/vegatarianism have had one or both of those flaws.

I also absolutely hate it when their argument calls on a division between man and nature when they can make no compelling argument to actually support any such division and then in direct contradiction to their own claim of such a division try to apply something of man to something of nature when they're supposedly seperate.

I'd be far more receptive to the idea if I were presented with a carefully thought out claim that was backed by actual data and didn't engage inherently subjective factors that don't necessarily apply at all, much less to me personally.

[THAC0]

There's no such thing as a no-kill veggie farm anyway (beyond maybe your own backyard). Lots of deer shot so they don't eat your broccoli.