Poll: Animal Right's Organizations: Terrorists, Vigilanties or Heroes
- Thread starter Soushi
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It depends what organization.
Peta are none of those three. Peta are simply insane.
I find most animal rights organizations to be full of shit. "Its evil to kill a dog but if you step on an ant its fine"? They seem to forget that humans are animals as well, we are just highly advanced apes! I hate people who kill animals for fun but its perfectly acceptable to kill animals to survive. Of course, thats just my opinion.
Peta are none of those three. Peta are simply insane.
I find most animal rights organizations to be full of shit. "Its evil to kill a dog but if you step on an ant its fine"? They seem to forget that humans are animals as well, we are just highly advanced apes! I hate people who kill animals for fun but its perfectly acceptable to kill animals to survive. Of course, thats just my opinion.
While some of them are kind of extreme, I'd say they are closest to being vigilantes.Some of the people in Peta are kind of... nuts. I mean, the whole "sea kitten" and mutts are better than purebred dogs is just complete b.s. in my opinion. They shouldn't be having the "I'd Rather be Naked Than Wear Fur" campaign, because when you see the adds, are animal rights really the first thing that comes to mind?
But they do bring to light a lot of what's wrong and they do get some stuff changed for the better, even if their methods are questionable. I just think they need to come off as less being completely insane and getting in people's face. They've become kind of a joke.
Otherwise, I think the one's who go in, videotape the abuse that occurs in the meat, fur and medical industries and expose the cruelty involved are absolute heroes.
Though more on topic, for me, they either fall into the vigilante or heroes categories.
But they do bring to light a lot of what's wrong and they do get some stuff changed for the better, even if their methods are questionable. I just think they need to come off as less being completely insane and getting in people's face. They've become kind of a joke.
Otherwise, I think the one's who go in, videotape the abuse that occurs in the meat, fur and medical industries and expose the cruelty involved are absolute heroes.
Though more on topic, for me, they either fall into the vigilante or heroes categories.
My vote will always be against those who sit at the pinnacle of civilization and shit all over it. The fact that Man has managed to dominate nature is pretty damn impressive, if you properly think about it. The domestication and use of animals was a big step towards the eventual creation of a society that can support people with enough free time to sit around and, say, research vaccines. Animals have ALWAYS been our tools, and anyone with even a cursory biology education is aware of how useful lab rats can be. (Fun fact- they're genetically identical, which makes them EXTREMELY handy for the emerging field of genetic engineering. Before you crap all over that, remember that it's our best bet for trying to feed the several billion people on the planet, you included.) It's actually kind of sad that the modern world produces such short-sighted individuals with no sense of historic perspective. Time travel would be a wonderful thing if only to take them back and show 'em a good proper polio epidemic.
There are more than one animal rights groups, and they all employ different strategies.
But the one, I'm sure everyone is thinking about, PETA. Yeah, they're... they're terrorists.
On the opposite end of the spectrum the ASPCA, they're awesome and they're heroes.
But the one, I'm sure everyone is thinking about, PETA. Yeah, they're... they're terrorists.
On the opposite end of the spectrum the ASPCA, they're awesome and they're heroes.
There are many people who would be dead without animal testing for isntance those with type 1 diabetes, and thats just one example. I will value a humans life over an animals any day. Some of the action carried out by animal activists is disgusting. I' am afraid some people are just not living in the real world, they have these ideas yet they never seem to consider the consequences of their actions or the alternatives they seek to introduce.
And now we have human-tissue-test-tubes and computer models to practice on. The only thing these practices show us is that, congratulations, you can transplant an organ in a cat. Ever wonder why there's a difference between veterinary doctors and medical doctors? You know, that whole 8 years worth of medical schooling, research and internships they each have to go through for 2 completely different fields?JJMUG said:
If my statement was so false, then I could simply go to a vet whenever I was running a fever. Since, after all, there's obviously no difference between us and these animals. We must have the same physiology, biology, immune system, metabolism and so on, if animal testing is such a god-send to science. I don't see any reason we would need two separate medical professionals to diagnose our cat with liver failure and us with a head cold.
Just make sure you never have a DVM and an MD in the same room when you start this train of thought!
.....*Cries*.Turbulenssi said:
O.T. Some are terrorists, some are vigilantes, some actually do shit to help, and then there's PETA.
Radical Animal Rights is like any other group that sends death threats and such - they inspire terror upon their fellow man, hence terrorists.
However i believe Animals should have rights with in reason.
Example: An animal is tested on to help cure a disease, i agree with. If an animal is tested on for perfume, i disagree with.
Much like i only buy free ranged eggs
However i believe Animals should have rights with in reason.
Example: An animal is tested on to help cure a disease, i agree with. If an animal is tested on for perfume, i disagree with.
Much like i only buy free ranged eggs
Ah the old i don't understand biology argument. Do you understand that a cats liver and a human liver perform the same function? Or a dogs heart and a Humans heart? or a Hamsters neurons and a humans neurons? or a horses white blood cells and a humans white blood cell? The major difference between animals is how symptoms manifest.Lerxst said:
Its not like there are different amounts of hormones in cats and dogs and horses and humans. Its not like those hormones are the same in animals, or cause different reactions in the body they are in. I mean cell death must be different in worms becuase the are not humans right? WRONG! Learn some biology, even the basics do wonders to prove how wrong you are.
It`s impossible to claim that the results from animal testing are accurate. Symptoms manifest differently, some things that are toxic to animals aren't toxic to us.
Ibuprofen is highly toxic to cats, but it's safe for people. Then of course there`s the obvious caffeine is poisonous for almost everything except people.
Plus there`s Alexander Fleming who tested the effects of Penicillin on a rabbit infected with bacteria. The drug did nothing in that case.
Actually, it's a fact that animal tests significantly sidetracked development of this important drug. In 1929, Alexander Fleming observed penicillin as it killed bacteria in a Petri dish. Intrigued, he administered the compound to bacteria-infected rabbits, hoping it would do the same thing.
"And it almost didn't come at all."
Unfortunately, penicillin was ineffective against the rabbit's infection. Disappointed, Fleming set the drug aside for a decade, as the rabbits had "proved" the drug was useless as a systemic medication.
Years later, he administered the drug in desperation to a dying patient, for whom all other treatments were ineffectual. The penicillin performed a miracle, and the rest is history.
Fleming might have thrown penicillin away had he done his initial tests on guinea pigs or hamsters, as it would have killed those species. Fleming later admitted that misleading results from animal testing almost prevented discovery of the entire field of antibiotics.
-Taken from http://www.curedisease.net/faqs/faq07.shtml
Point being, the results obtained from animal testing are often inaccurate. There are methods that achieve far more accurate results, such as the use of human tissue.
There's also the issue of how the animals used in science are treated. Vivisection while an animal is still fully conscious and not under the influence of painkillers? Animals forced to live in filthy conditions without access to food, clean water or veterinary care? Blatant cruelty on the part of under qualified staff? Honestly, no matter what, there's no excuse to be made for willfully torturing a cat by ripping out it's nails. Also, many of the experiments aren't necessary. I'm sure everyone will agree that radiation is bad. Smoking while pregnant is bad. Sewing someone's eyes shut at birth or separating a new born and mother will lead to trauma. And what excuse is there to not discover methods of testing new drugs without the use of animals?
No matter what, a rat is not a human. They won't always show accurate results.
Ibuprofen is highly toxic to cats, but it's safe for people. Then of course there`s the obvious caffeine is poisonous for almost everything except people.
Plus there`s Alexander Fleming who tested the effects of Penicillin on a rabbit infected with bacteria. The drug did nothing in that case.
Actually, it's a fact that animal tests significantly sidetracked development of this important drug. In 1929, Alexander Fleming observed penicillin as it killed bacteria in a Petri dish. Intrigued, he administered the compound to bacteria-infected rabbits, hoping it would do the same thing.
"And it almost didn't come at all."
Unfortunately, penicillin was ineffective against the rabbit's infection. Disappointed, Fleming set the drug aside for a decade, as the rabbits had "proved" the drug was useless as a systemic medication.
Years later, he administered the drug in desperation to a dying patient, for whom all other treatments were ineffectual. The penicillin performed a miracle, and the rest is history.
Fleming might have thrown penicillin away had he done his initial tests on guinea pigs or hamsters, as it would have killed those species. Fleming later admitted that misleading results from animal testing almost prevented discovery of the entire field of antibiotics.
-Taken from http://www.curedisease.net/faqs/faq07.shtml
Point being, the results obtained from animal testing are often inaccurate. There are methods that achieve far more accurate results, such as the use of human tissue.
There's also the issue of how the animals used in science are treated. Vivisection while an animal is still fully conscious and not under the influence of painkillers? Animals forced to live in filthy conditions without access to food, clean water or veterinary care? Blatant cruelty on the part of under qualified staff? Honestly, no matter what, there's no excuse to be made for willfully torturing a cat by ripping out it's nails. Also, many of the experiments aren't necessary. I'm sure everyone will agree that radiation is bad. Smoking while pregnant is bad. Sewing someone's eyes shut at birth or separating a new born and mother will lead to trauma. And what excuse is there to not discover methods of testing new drugs without the use of animals?
No matter what, a rat is not a human. They won't always show accurate results.
This, exactly. It's really not a homogenous movement. You have extremists, but then you have people who don't do anything beyond maybe not eating meat or maybe giving money to PETA and never bother anyone else about it, unless the issue becomes relevant.Jindrak said:
Well, I can't recall any specific actions i would classify as terrorism.
Terrorism is defined (as far as i remember) as controlling people through terror (fear and violence)
The few cases of what could be classified as violence, even if only barely, liek throwing paint at people seems more to me as an agressice 'assault' than with the assault beeing the end-game of some retard who didn't think any further than "this is the enemy, i must attack" Which is more liek a statement of the persons despise against fur, than an act mean to firghten people into conforming to his ways.
I doubt they're trying to make people stop wearing fur, though teh fear of having paint thrown over them.
Vigilantes is most describing in my book, for those who break the law, at least on minor levels. If someone bombed something in order to kill and frighten people, i would consider it terrorism. But this is not the means teh activists and activist lawbreakers use.
Stupid comes to midn here as well, lots of places, mink farms are ravaged and the minks are set free, which leads to them starving or freezing (dependant on where in teh world) to death, cause they've never learned to hunt, cause they we're raised in captivity.
So eitehr the people doing this are too ignorant, to get to know teh consequence of their actions before they do their thing, or they are willing to let the animals they proclaim to love starve to death, for teh sake of tehir own cause.
The people who fight legally against cruelty to animals are heroes or at least have good intentions (guess thats basicly what defines heroism) whether or not i agree with their ideals.
I belive the food industry should treat animals well, and i agree with them trying to reform animal rights laws on that matter.
I disagree with the peopel thinking an animals natural way of live is always unquestionally better compared to anything else. Take pets for instance, if people know how to care for them (and after hearing my girlfriend who is ana nimal handler tell stories, i've realized that it's not that easy, and a lot of people mistreat their pets due to lack of knowledge) and treats them well, I belive they can easily have a better life, than their wild counterparts.
I eat meat, and i don't see a problem with that.
If PETA thinks meat is murder, does that mean we should imprisson not only every non veggie, but also carnivorous animals?
"But no, it's natural for them, so it's okay" but isn't the same thing true for us? as far as i know, people have been eating meat since we were hardly anything but monkeys, some monkeys eat meat as well (chimps, amongst others i think) Are we not part of nature? Did evolution not create us, the same way it created the rest of the species that inhabbit this planet? Just because we're consiously aware of our existence as part of nature doesn't mean we're not part of it.
As a final note, i think that amongst the ranks of animal activists are people who truly cares for animals rights, but tehres also a bunch of peopel there for their own sake, cause they just want a palce to fit in, and teh easiest way to fit in is to join against a common enemy, in this case societis cruelty to animals.
Terrorism is defined (as far as i remember) as controlling people through terror (fear and violence)
The few cases of what could be classified as violence, even if only barely, liek throwing paint at people seems more to me as an agressice 'assault' than with the assault beeing the end-game of some retard who didn't think any further than "this is the enemy, i must attack" Which is more liek a statement of the persons despise against fur, than an act mean to firghten people into conforming to his ways.
I doubt they're trying to make people stop wearing fur, though teh fear of having paint thrown over them.
Vigilantes is most describing in my book, for those who break the law, at least on minor levels. If someone bombed something in order to kill and frighten people, i would consider it terrorism. But this is not the means teh activists and activist lawbreakers use.
Stupid comes to midn here as well, lots of places, mink farms are ravaged and the minks are set free, which leads to them starving or freezing (dependant on where in teh world) to death, cause they've never learned to hunt, cause they we're raised in captivity.
So eitehr the people doing this are too ignorant, to get to know teh consequence of their actions before they do their thing, or they are willing to let the animals they proclaim to love starve to death, for teh sake of tehir own cause.
The people who fight legally against cruelty to animals are heroes or at least have good intentions (guess thats basicly what defines heroism) whether or not i agree with their ideals.
I belive the food industry should treat animals well, and i agree with them trying to reform animal rights laws on that matter.
I disagree with the peopel thinking an animals natural way of live is always unquestionally better compared to anything else. Take pets for instance, if people know how to care for them (and after hearing my girlfriend who is ana nimal handler tell stories, i've realized that it's not that easy, and a lot of people mistreat their pets due to lack of knowledge) and treats them well, I belive they can easily have a better life, than their wild counterparts.
I eat meat, and i don't see a problem with that.
If PETA thinks meat is murder, does that mean we should imprisson not only every non veggie, but also carnivorous animals?
"But no, it's natural for them, so it's okay" but isn't the same thing true for us? as far as i know, people have been eating meat since we were hardly anything but monkeys, some monkeys eat meat as well (chimps, amongst others i think) Are we not part of nature? Did evolution not create us, the same way it created the rest of the species that inhabbit this planet? Just because we're consiously aware of our existence as part of nature doesn't mean we're not part of it.
As a final note, i think that amongst the ranks of animal activists are people who truly cares for animals rights, but tehres also a bunch of peopel there for their own sake, cause they just want a palce to fit in, and teh easiest way to fit in is to join against a common enemy, in this case societis cruelty to animals.