Economic inequality is, in substantial part, a political phenomenon
Quote of the day
Email & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
openDemocracy likes:
NavigationThe World
Our writers |
 |
PETA: they love animals, but hate humans
Posts: Joined: 2004-05-05
Oh no, here we go again - the animal loving People For The Ethical Treament Of Animals (PETA), the famous liberators of chickens and all things furry, the people who gave us the "Holocaust on Your Plate" campaign; have taken their nauseating political propaganda to new condescending heights. Except this time, PETA have gone too far, they have accused parents who feed their children meat of being nothing but child abusers .
I'd like to know how PETA gets off trying to equate loving parents with being akin to kiddie-fiddlers. It's an insult, and it's enough to turn someone like me into an animal hater. PETA tries to defend their highly dubious position by arguing that they are speaking on behalf of children - according to PETA, children;
"are inherently compassionate and interested in animals. They would be appalled to learn that each year in the United Kingdom, more than 900 million mammals and birds
Submitted on Tue, 2006-10-24 10:34
Re: PETA: they love animals, but hate humans
The Naive Vegetarian
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/vegetarian.html#link9
Re: PETA: they love animals, but hate humans
Courtney Hamilton said:
"...PETA.. accused parents who feed their children meat of being nothing but child abusers."
From the reasons given alone it is obvious the article is biased. I would not hesitate to despute the reasons myself, from a keen animal welfare campaigner prospective.
Certainly I can empathise with your annoyance.
However, I believe I could put up a decent arguement that a human child may be given a well norished diet not just on a vegetarian diet, but on a vegan one. Furthermore, relating directly to the linked article I suspect I could also argue that feeding children meat, when you have means to do otherwise, is abuse.
Re: PETA: they love animals, but hate humans
alostentity,
"I could put up a decent arguement that a human child may be given a well norished diet not just on a vegetarian diet, but on a vegan one".
I find that rather difficult to believe - indeed, when it comes to children and food, I would have thought that a balanced diet is precisely what children need.
But, having said all that, I wouldn't dream of telling loving parents what they should feed their children - as far as I'm concerned, parents know best what to feed their own kids.
This is the main reason why I think that PETA have gone too far this time - for a start, who are they to argue that they know whats best for other peoples childern?
Re: PETA: they love animals, but hate humans
I said:
"I could put up a decent arguement that a human child may be given a well norished diet not just on a vegetarian diet, but on a vegan one."
Courtney said:
"I find that rather difficult to believe - indeed, when it comes to children and food, I would have thought that a balanced diet is precisely what children need."
Source: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism[/url]
While I don't use Wikipedia as the direct source to support my statement, it provides astute links to relevant sites and summaries quite well the misconception that a diet that includes meat is more balanced than a vegan one. Infact, the article goes so far as to suggest, a vegan diet can be more benefitial than a omnivorous diet.
Courtney also said:
"But, having said all that, I wouldn't dream of telling loving parents what they should feed their children - as far as I'm concerned, parents know best what to feed their own kids."
Quite, however the foundation of the veganism is the philosophy of avoiding all exploitation of animals. Basically what I mean is, if a comprehensively balanced diet can be achieved without meat then perhaps it is right to tell parents they should and even will not be allowed to eat meat, as eating meat is asserting your belief that you have dominion over other creatures. Surely this is imposing your view on anouther being? You have the right to have that view, but not to inflict it on others.
To bring the arguement back to the original question:
If it is morally questionably to kill animals for food then feeding a defenceless child meat is imposing a questionable (to say the least) belief on someone who cannot argue. Surely it would be best to remain neutral as far as keeping your child in the best state of welfare as possible (which is the arguement for the balanced diet...).
Re: PETA: they love animals, but hate humans
alostentity,
"[A]s eating meat is asserting your belief that you have dominion over other creatures."
This is absolutly and morally right - humans are superior to animals, and any other creature.
Humans have the ability to construct and generate ideas, and abstract thoughts - that is why we have music, poetry or even politics and economics. Without these abilities, humanity would be unable to build on the achievements of generations that have gone before. It is these abilities that set us apart from animals and other creatures.
Most animals, and humans have been on the Earth for some six million years, in that time animals have hardly changed their behaviour, whereas humans self-evidently have - there is no comparison - in the last one hundred years alone, humans have made vast improvements and constant innovations - animals, in all that time have remained basically the same.
The very fact that we eat animals, keep them as pets, lock them up in zoo's, use them to pull carts, ride them, is testimony of our superiority over animals, and nature in general. Indeed, humans are exceptional, that is why we can assert our domination over animals.
Re: PETA: they love animals, but hate humans
I said:
"[A]s eating meat is asserting your belief that you have dominion over other creatures."
You responded:
"This is absolutly and morally right - humans are superior to animals, and any other creature."
You then go on to to justify your belief that humans are superior to other animals (not actually furthering the equality between superiority and moral right).
My arguement is precisely that you are inflicting your belief, (and it is a belief) on creatures that you do not fully comprehend their cognitive functions. The foundamental arguement that everyone should be allowed to hold their own beliefs is true, however, when it involves others then the actual practicing of the belief should be rightly limited.
Tackling your opinion on the superiority (or argueably it is far more accurate to say further evolved) of the human race and that very apparent reality gives us the right to persecute animals:
It is precisely this evolution of cognitive function that is the greatest destinction between us and other animals (tho various monkeys are shown extremely sophisticated mental capacities). Such a distinction gives rise the the very arguement for compassion (extreme I guess) towards animals.
Humans are sophisticated beings and that allows us to comprehend to concepts of morality. The idea that your view of morality gives you the right to inflict it on other beings is absurd. If you fully comprehend morality you should understand that everyone's view of morality is different and this applies to (maybe not by the creatures) but our view of the treatment of other creatures. We cannot fully comprehend the abilities or development of other beings and so we should treat other creatures with compassion.
To clarify, I am not argueing that that animals have rights, and nor that if neccessary we should not kill other animals for food, but in all cases where have alternative possibilities then it is universally right to avoiding the harming of creatures.
The premise that we are superior beings and the conclusion that this gives us the right to hurt animals is not a neccessary truth or even inferred. They are two very seperate statements.
>We are superior in that our cognitive functions are vastly more advance.
>>This allows the comprehension or the concept of morality.
>>>Morality is individual.
|
|
|
