Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PETA is filled with idiots

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Tuberski
    It is hypocrisy. They say all animal testing should stop, but thank God for animal testing in my case.


    It's only hypocricy if they benefit from current testing of animals. If. for example, they required a medicine that could only be obtained by killing animals, then that would be hypocricy, for example, taking shark cartiledge (assuming it actually worked). Just as it's not hypocricy for someone living in the United States to protest the current mistreatment of the American Indians.

    Animal testing stops, medical advancements stop, it's that simple.


    That's only true in some cases. Not all. It's not that simple. A lot of tests done on animals are completely unnecessary and cruel. Cosmetics testing is completely unnecessary. We have shampoos, soaps, make-up, face cremes etc. that already function. We don't need more, thus any testing on animals for new products is simple cruelty for the sake of vanity and profit.

    While I certainly don't want all animal testing to stop, I think a lot of it could be done away with.
    Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

    Comment


    • #62
      I agree with Che, there is a lot of stupid animal testing done, that makes no sense.

      There is, however, a lot of important animal testing that goes on.
      Monkey!!!

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Flubber
        Necessary? No. But eating animals are oh so delicious.
        While very, very true, it is not a valid counter-argument to the point. A better counter argument would be to point out that the Atkins diets seems to indicate that a diet high in meat and fish is far more healthy than a vegitarian diet. The counter-counter argument however is that it's actually possible to have a vegitarian Atkins diet. The counter-counter-counter-arugment would be that it would likely still involve animal exploitation, however, since without meat, the dieter would require a massive increase in dairy and egg products.

        BTW, I have a freezer full of meat, which I will probably have to cook on Sunday because of the damned hurricane.
        Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by chegitz guevara
          It's only hypocricy if they benefit from current testing of animals. If. for example, they required a medicine that could only be obtained by killing animals, then that would be hypocricy, for example, taking shark cartiledge (assuming it actually worked). Just as it's not hypocricy for someone living in the United States to protest the current mistreatment of the American Indians.
          Nobody derives benefits from current research, it's research.
          To give you an idea of animal research leading to medical care:

          Anaesthetics

          Anticoagulants

          Asthma therapy

          Blood transfusion

          Diphtheria vaccine

          Drugs for high blood pressure

          Drugs to control transplant rejection

          Heart lung machine

          Heart replacement valves

          Hib meningitis vaccine

          Insulin for diabetes

          Kidney dialysis

          Leukaemia treatments

          Penicillin

          Polio vaccine

          Transplants

          Whooping cough (pertussis) vaccine





          That's only true in some cases. Not all. It's not that simple. A lot of tests done on animals are completely unnecessary and cruel. Cosmetics testing is completely unnecessary. We have shampoos, soaps, make-up, face cremes etc. that already function. We don't need more, thus any testing on animals for new products is simple cruelty for the sake of vanity and profit.


          While I certainly don't want all animal testing to stop, I think a lot of it could be done away with.


          Cosmetics and shampoo and so forth, I agree with, it should stop. This seems cruel and a waste.

          Medical research may be cruel, but it does serve a positive purpose.

          ACK!
          Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust!

          Comment


          • #65
            Tubers; I don't think the if in Che's statement indicates that such testing doesn't exist, only that some testing occurs that doesn't benefit mankind. He is not saying that there is no current animal testing that benefits humanity... That would just be absurd.
            Monkey!!!

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by chegitz guevara


              That's a stupid counter-argument. Humans are perfectly capable of living as herbivores, thus the killng of animals for food is not necessary for humans. Preditors are not capable of living as herbivores, and thus must eat other animals to live. Furthermore, herbivores evolved in concert with carnivores, and require their existence in order to prevent overpopulation and species die-off. Human meat eating does not play this role in nature.
              are you a veggie che?

              edit. never mind i read further
              Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We are evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that. --Saul Tigh

              Comment


              • #67
                Humans are perfectly capable of living as herbivores
                capable or natural? Definitly not natural. Don't ask me to defy myself.
                Monkey!!!

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by chegitz guevara


                  While very, very true, it is not a valid counter-argument to the point. A better counter argument would be to point out that the Atkins diets seems to indicate that a diet high in meat and fish is far more healthy than a vegitarian diet. The counter-counter argument however is that it's actually possible to have a vegitarian Atkins diet. The counter-counter-counter-arugment would be that it would likely still involve animal exploitation, however, since without meat, the dieter would require a massive increase in dairy and egg products.
                  Good post-- but the delicousnessof beef is enough for me. My view is that animals are a natuural resource to be exploited. I agree that we should avoid cruelty and inflicting pain so I agree that a lot of animal testing should stop for cosmetics etc. But if implanting malignant tumors in white mice saves just ONE human life, I'm fine with that.

                  Oh and did I mention . . . Beef yum??

                  had a buffalo burger last week and that was real good too. That reminds me . .. I should get some caribou or moose
                  You don't get to 300 losses without being a pretty exceptional goaltender.-- Ben Kenobi speaking of Roberto Luongo

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Tuberski
                    Medical research may be cruel, but it does serve a positive purpose.
                    I agree. This doesn't, however, support your contention that members of PETA who use insulin are hypocrites.

                    Hypocricy is saying one thing while not obeying it. PETA is not saying people should not benefit from past animal testing. That would be like saying that everyone who ever ate meat should hack off an arm and a leg. The animals have already ben tortured and killed. It does them no good to refuse to use the medical knowledge gained. If PETA went around secretly eating meat, that would be hypocricy.

                    What PETA argues (incorrectly I might add), is that we can now use computers to model chemical interactions and get our medical knowledge thatway. Eventually this might actually be the case, but it isn't true today.
                    Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
                      Because we hunt with tools. If we'd run after a gazelle, and rip it's throat open to kill it, then rip chunks of meat from the carcas to eat it...

                      No problem for PETA.

                      One can't hunt potatoes... And look sane, speaking from experience.
                      we aren't allowed to use our intelligence, but animals are allowed to use what they gained from the evolutionary process.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by chegitz guevara


                        I agree. This doesn't, however, support your contention that members of PETA who use insulin are hypocrites.

                        Hypocricy is saying one thing while not obeying it. PETA is not saying people should not benefit from past animal testing. That would be like saying that everyone who ever ate meat should hack off an arm and a leg. The animals have already ben tortured and killed. It does them no good to refuse to use the medical knowledge gained. If PETA went around secretly eating meat, that would be hypocricy.

                        What PETA argues (incorrectly I might add), is that we can now use computers to model chemical interactions and get our medical knowledge thatway. Eventually this might actually be the case, but it isn't true today.
                        It is hypocrisy to say:

                        While I benefit from previous animal medical research, I don't want anyone else to ever benefit from animal research that is still being done.

                        Just because some people aren't lucky enough to have diabetes, which has already benefitted, doesn't mean they don't deserve the same chance to benefit.

                        So, yes, she is a hypocrite.

                        ACK!
                        Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust!

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Flubber
                          My view is that animals are a natural resource to be exploited.


                          Beef is not a natural resource. Some fish and seafood products are, but these are generally over exploited and are causing collapsing stocks (exceptions being the Pacific Halibut and the Stone Crab) or massive collateral damage to non-target species. Animal farming (including the farming of fish and shrimp) are extremely wasteful in terms of water and feed, and also tend to result in massive local pollution which generally overwhelms the ability of local ecosystems to sustain themselves.

                          if implanting malignant tumors in white mice saves just ONE human life, I'm fine with that.


                          I agree. I am a speciesist. I think humans are the most important thing around. Of course, I am a human, so I'm not necessarily objective on the matter. My general view on animal rights is that treating animals better is better for us. Saving our environment means there is a place for us. Not eating everything in sight means there's food for us in the future.
                          Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Tuberski
                            It is hypocrisy to say:

                            While I benefit from previous animal medical research, I don't want anyone else to ever benefit from animal research that is still being done.
                            That's like saying someone's a hypocrite for begin a vegitarian if they ever ate meat in the past. It's not hypocricy to say we know better now, but we should benefit off of what we did in the past.

                            Would you argue that everyone who says we should stop dicking over the American Indian should move to Europe? You and I benefit from the theft of Indain lands and the genocide against Indians in the 19th Century. Is it hypocricy to say that it's wrong to keep shafting American Indians?
                            Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Whoha
                              we aren't allowed to use our intelligence, but animals are allowed to use what they gained from the evolutionary process.
                              Actually, PETA is arguing that because we are intelligent, we don't need to do a lot of the things that we do, just because it's easier or tastier, etc.
                              Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                PETA doesn't want animals to have as much rights as humans. They want them to have more. For humans are intelligent and should suffer for having ability to choose. Of course they (peta) are not rational fair or sane, there are other organisations who already do that. Nobody would listen to them if they weren't radical.

                                I think PETA members who need any drugs made with the help of animal testing should just stop using them. Why? Because that would be consistent with their line of radical stunts they pull. When a high profile member dies it means publicity. It would show people they really mean business for once making almost a selfish act. It's easier to make others give up their cruel traditions, or make them suffer for the things they are used to do.

                                Necessary is a funny word. How much activies people do could be considered as unnecessary. What would be left? Hmm

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X