[Flipside]

Truth is, we have pitifully few reources that are self-maintaining as animal stock is. We talk about a 'renewable energy source' as something of the future, but as far as our biology is concerned, nature figured it out billions of years ago. And it's not just meat. Leather, Wool, Milk, Eggs, Silk, Gelotin etc. It's easy when you are in the First World to believe that we can live without these sort of things, but the truth is that for the vast majority of the planet, they are the core elements of survival.

For example, to a Sherpa, a goat is a source of milk, clothing and, eventually, food. They cannot grow Cotton or food crops because they are nomadic and because the climate will not allow it, they would have to fundamentally change their way of life in order to stop using animals. Unless PETA want to actually get into these countries and establish vast textile and hydroponics industries, whether the country involved wishes it or not, they really are just preaching from a position of ignorance.

[The E]

Which is why PETA is never going to be non-ridiculous, given their blindness to issues outside of the very specific circumstances and lifestyle options available in the first world.

[zookeeper]

Umm... how does that figure, considering that PETA doesn't campaign against sherpas keeping goats or any other "necessary" and reasonably humane use of animals?

[Flipside]

It's complained about Obama swatting a fly before. And yes, they have stated that pet ownership is slavery and that wearing wool is encouraging the abuse of animals, though, in fairness, they were referring to Australian sheep at the time.

Thing is, if they called themselves the 'People for the Responsible Treatment of Animals' and campaigned more along those lines, they'd probably be regarded with less embarassment as they tend to be. It's the whole idea that it's 'Vegan or nothing' has permeated the organisation to the point of obsession. They even state a falsehood in their article on wool on their site, they state that sheep only grow enough wool to protect themselves from the environment, which is not true, wool-producing sheep will keep growing wool slowly till it is sheared, as the incident with 'Shrek' highlighted...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrek_%28sheep%29

[The E]

The problem is that their definition of "humane use" is "no use at all". If we take the precedent alluded to in the OP, how is one of those goats not a slave that needs to be liberated?

Consider the following statement put forth by PETA's head idiot:

If anybody wonders 'what's this with all these reforms?', you can hear us clearly. Our goal is total animal liberation, and the day when everyone believes that animals are not ours to eat, not ours to wear, not ours to experiment [on], and not ours for entertainment or any other exploitive purpose.

[zookeeper]

It's complained about Obama swatting a fly before. And yes, they have stated that pet ownership is slavery and that wearing wool is encouraging the abuse of animals, though, in fairness, they were referring to Australian sheep at the time.

What, this "PETA complains about Obama swatting a fly" thing is still making circles? It was never substantiated anywhere.

Anyway, isn't it kinda obvious that PETA operates in the context of first world countries and the luxury of choice, as opposed to being against every form of utilization of animals no matter how necessary for human survival? If their goal is "total animal liberation", then do you really believe that they'd rather want to see third-world sherpas starve or freeze to death without their goats or simply to see sherpas no longer need goats to survive and then to stop using them?

And let it be stated again for political correctness' sake that I disagree with PETA (almost) as much as the next guy, although probably for somewhat different reasons. They're certainly attacked for the completely wrong reasons most of the time.

[Flipside]

Because it comes with the assumption that, deep down, they want to change their lives, that the world that PETA lives in is somehow a goal to be achieved, rather than simply another choice, and one that Sherpas don't have the luxury, and probably don't have the inclination to make.

Thing is, all the current goals of PETA will achieve is to reduce the number of currently plentiful animals because they are no longer needed, lessen awareness and sympathy for endangered species by preventing zoos etc from raising awareness and collecting donations, and create an increase in the artificial textiles industry, which is one of the poorer ones when it comes to pollution creation.

When PETA campaigned against Battery farming, I was with them, when they complained about the terrible conditions that some Circus animals were kept under, I was with them, but, for me at least, it's a big leap from 'treat them humanely' to 'treat them as humans', I just feel PETA has somehow blurred the distinction.

[The E]

I'm sorry, but if someone makes absolute statements like the one quoted above, and does not qualify them with real-world stuff, then I am going to go ahead and assume that they're a) Idiots and b) serious.

Yes, that does mean that in my view, PETA's stated goals do involve killing real human beings.

[Nuke]

As long as Bacon is delicious, I believe there's always going to be a market for raising, killing, and then turning pigs into it.

PETA, delusional first-world idiots that they are, will not change that. The only thing that could would be to find a way to produce equal-quality bacon without involving pigs, at the same or a better price than traditional pig-based methods.

sacrilege! do not disgrace the bacon!

[zookeeper]

Because it comes with the assumption that, deep down, they want to change their lives, that the world that PETA lives in is somehow a goal to be achieved, rather than simply another choice, and one that Sherpas don't have the luxury, and probably don't have the inclination to make.

Well of course it's also a goal. If I for instance could choose between the world as it is and the world as it is except that sherpas magically wouldn't need to use goats yet they'd be just as well off, of course I'd pick the latter. If sherpas using goats involves even the tiniest ethical problem no matter how negligible compared to the gains the sherpas get from it (let's say the ratio is +1 bad, +10 good), then it ought to be a goal to improve things so that the said tiny ethical problem can be avoided (improving the situation to +0 bad, +10 good). Immensely low-priority compared to bigger issues elsewhere, but an eventual goal nevertheless.

There's nothing inherently wrong with changing other people's lifestyles. It's just hard to do in a way which results in a net benefit.

Thing is, all the current goals of PETA will achieve is to reduce the number of currently plentiful animals because they are no longer needed, lessen awareness and sympathy for endangered species by preventing zoos etc from raising awareness and collecting donations, and create an increase in the artificial textiles industry, which is one of the poorer ones when it comes to pollution creation.

Well, any lost awareness and sympathy for endangered species it makes up for increased awareness and sympathy for domestic species, and frankly, it's not like people lose interest in endangered rhinos if they pick up interest in the conditions of pigs. I'm not sure what animals you're referring to by plentiful animals though, or why it'd be bad to reduce their numbers.

Also, I don't buy the idea that the artificial textiles industry pollutes more than the leather industry (even considering the synergy with the meat industry), and it certainly does less so than the fur industry, but since I'm not really an expert, let's assume so for the sake of the argument.

When PETA campaigned against Battery farming, I was with them, when they complained about the terrible conditions that some Circus animals were kept under, I was with them, but, for me at least, it's a big leap from 'treat them humanely' to 'treat them as humans', I just feel PETA has somehow blurred the distinction.

Well, if you're referring to the topic, then yeah, I'd agree it's completely silly. When the problem is breeding (or capturing; dunno how much that is still done) of orcas into captivity, then I'd rather see them arguing against that instead of pulling a PR stunt.

[Mikes]

As long as Bacon is delicious, I believe there's always going to be a market for raising, killing, and then turning pigs into it.

PETA, delusional first-world idiots that they are, will not change that. The only thing that could would be to find a way to produce equal-quality bacon without involving pigs, at the same or a better price than traditional pig-based methods.

sacrilege! do not disgrace the bacon!

Well the Japanese are supposedly working on it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/16/japanese-scientist-makes-poop-burger_n_878210.html

[karajorma]

Felt this deserved a (re) posting.

[MP-Ryan]

There's actually quite a bit of [successful] research on production of consumable meat without raising animals for that purpose, much of which is actually capable of producing edible product.

http://www.scienceinseconds.com/episodes/In-Vitro-Meat  See references under the video.

[Nuke]

i wonder if were doing more damage by saving endangered species that to simply allow them to die out. extinction is part of evolution. by preventing nonviable species from dieing out, you increase competition for space and resources by other species, hindering their further evolution and not making room for new species. yes i admit we cause a ****ton of extinctions on our own, but these are species that are nonviable because of competition with humans, and thus cannot adapt survive in their changing environment. if we constantly try to preserve these species, it wont allow for any development of traits that would make them viable despite our interference. one such potential trait is greater intelligence. we may actually be preventing the evolution of a second sentient species.

[Qent]

Humans are just a part of the environment, providing selective pressure to be cute and/or endangered.

In more (or maybe less) serious news, I saw a t-shirt with the text "For every animal you don't eat, I'll eat three." Made my day.

[NGTM-1R]

For me it's actually quite simple.

PETA is trying to commit genocide.

I'm not making that up. I am not exaggerating for effect. PETA is trying to destroy entire species. They want to kill my dog. They want to kill all dogs. Because dogs have evolved to hang out with humans and that's worked out remarkably well for them. They far outnumber their wild brothers, wolves.

PETA wants to free the dogs. This will result in millions of them dying and millions of others wrecking local ecosystems, and probably squeezing out existing wolf species and driving them to extinction. PETA wants to genocide entire breeds of dog that don't have the necessary requisites to survive in the wild, and then kill the wolves for good measure.

And we haven't even gotten started on other domesticated species. PETA is composed of monsters and fools, advocating the genocide of entire species.

[Pred the Penguin]

What about the fish?! No one cares about the fish! A humungous portion of fish populations have already died out...

[Sushi]

What about the fish?! No one cares about the fish! A humungous portion of fish populations have already died out...

Don't you mean Sea Kittens?

It's stuff like this that makes it hard to take PETA seriously.

[Klaustrophobia]

It's complained about Obama swatting a fly before. And yes, they have stated that pet ownership is slavery and that wearing wool is encouraging the abuse of animals, though, in fairness, they were referring to Australian sheep at the time.

What, this "PETA complains about Obama swatting a fly" thing is still making circles? It was never substantiated anywhere.

uh, yes it was.  i saw the news report with my own eyes where a PETA spokesman said something to the effect of "we're disappointed the president would kill something on national TV" and held up some kind of weird catch-and-release device they were sending to the white house for him to use in the future.

[zookeeper]

What, this "PETA complains about Obama swatting a fly" thing is still making circles? It was never substantiated anywhere.

uh, yes it was.  i saw the news report with my own eyes where a PETA spokesman said something to the effect of "we're disappointed the president would kill something on national TV" and held up some kind of weird catch-and-release device they were sending to the white house for him to use in the future.

Really? Well, that's more like it then, although a link would be nice since despite actually having tried to search for such a thing I've never found anything like that. All I've ever seen is people complaining about it.