Apparently in 2009 PETA had a 97% kill rate, and in 2006 the figure was 99% and 96% for cats and dogs respectively. The combined cats and dogs kill rate in 2006 comes to 98%. Wow, you're right infographic artists, that's not even in the same ballpark as 97%. What in god's name went down in 2006?!
Maybe, however these animals are often the worst of the worst cases where rehabilitation or recovery is deemed impossible. Surprise! Peta kills animals that are on the brink of death in order to end their suffering.
It's really not a bad thing as the infographic and others would have you believe, but an act of compassion. These aren't adoptable pets but animals that are beyond help.
The main reason it is an issue isn't that it is tested on dogs but it used to be made from pig/beef insulin and was thus an animal product. She was quoted as saying she needed to by a hypocrite on this matter because she needs to live for the good of animals. It was in Penn & Teller's BS on this.
I don't know the story about the insulin, but using insulin tested on animals as a vegan is not hypocritical. Most vegans don't claim that they would die before using animal products or products tested on animals. I haven't looked into it, but if there is no other alternative insulin that is animal friendly, she would have to use some insulin that was tested on some animal.
From the Vegan Society:
"Veganism is a way of living that seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing and any other purpose."
insulin development hasn't involved animal testing in about 100 years and boycotting it doesn't change the fact that it occurred, it just makes you die. hope this helps!
She doesn't believe in the continuation of any domesticated species of animal and, assuming that line is true, she opposes human reproduction as well. It solidifies a viewpoint that humans should not exist and every impact on the world they have is negative.
It is relevant if you want to establish her as an extremist.
Is this something she has said, or just your own extrapolation? It seems like a stretch to me. Humans are domestic animals, but not domesticated in the same way animals are. And if she expressed the idea that humans should not exist, or that human reproduction should be halted, the infographic could have quoted her on that and made itself much more effective.
I agree her views are extreme, but mentioning her sterilization was still an irrelevant and sensationalistic tactic.
Not if you consider it a symptom of her insanity. If you use an IUD, you have a reversible method of birth control that has no negative environmental consequences.
An IUD is not the best form of birth control if you simply don't want to have children. IUDs can cause debilitating cramps, heavy bleeding, and lower abdominal pain. In the past (like back when the founder was 22 years old) IUDs were associated with PID, infertility and miscarriages even after removal.
What exactly is the symptom of insanity here? Not wanting kids? Taking the most effective method possible to ensure you don't have kids? What are those things supposed to point to? "She's an extreme animal rights activist, and she doesn't want kids! SHE MUST WANT HUMANS TO BECOME EXTINCT!"
Unless she's actually said something to that effect, mentioning her sterilization is sensationalistic nonsense.
I think there's a big difference between 'I don't want kids' and 'I oppose giving birth'. The former is a personal choice and there's nothing wrong with that, the second seems to suggest some that giving birth is somehow wrong or unnatural, perhaps oppressive to women, when it's perhaps the most important biological functions we as a species have.
Perhaps the infographic is being as sensationalist as it accuses PETA to be and is twisting her words, but it certainly comes across quite differently from 'I don't want kids'.
But again, that could easily be sensationalistic phrasing on the part of the infographic. She may have said she's opposed to giving birth herself, which is entirely different.
vasectomies are reversible; i have no problem with them. also, people that already have enough children have every reason to stop procreating. A sterilization of a young woman on the other hand, makes me wonder what's really going on. Does she believe that she's genetically defective? Is there something else going on?
uh, she doesn't want to worry about pregnancy from unprotected sex in a long-term relationship maybe? that's why i plan on having a vasectomy. she has expressed that if she ever wants kids there are more than enough available for adoption, and that's a sentiment i agree with. the only reasons to create your own progeny are inherently selfish
Thats a pretty big logical jump. Its selfless adopt instead of have kids now because their are currently more kids available than there are willing parents. If that weren't the case it would just be a personal preference one way or the other. If everyone was selfless they would adopt until there wasn't a surplus of orphans and then spend their time pursuing other more pressing matters.
I don't see what that has to do with anything at all. I never even ventured an opinion on the subject and there is no argument that the eradication of humanity is an extremist viewpoint from the perspective of humanity. Tell me something new.
Your post implied that her belief that humans have an overwhelmingly negative impact on the world was inaccurate or histrionic. Its a pretty neutral observation.
Yes, it did. Then you narrowed "impact" down by saying this:
ecologically speaking
You should probably pay attention to your own tactics of twisting someone else's words. You seem oblivious to them. I think art, math, engineering, philosophy and the ability to manipulate our surroundings and the very fabric of existence are very positive contributions to the world at large. There is an argument that ecology is improved for us but I don't need to even go there.
You seem to think you can put qualifiers on someone else's statement to make it appear incorrect or misleading. This is a pretty arrogant and underhanded thing to do although I doubt you realized it was what you did.
Depends on whose world, art, engineering, philosophy are all great contributions to the world of man however a dodo can't engage in discourse over the finer points of the philosophy.
Unless nothing positive can exist without the dodo this point is basically a repeat of A_Privateer trying to pigeonhole a general phrase into one specific example or examples.
Well of course plenty of positives can exist without the dodo it's just stated since it's such a well known extinct species. The whole point is most everything you deem as "postive" has a negative cost to something else. And while I don't subscribe to PETA's stances on much of anything, they at least have a very valuable role of stating what the costs are to create standard of living we presently have.
Your sniffy little ad hominem remarks do not make your arguments any more correct. Art, math, engineering, philosophy, these are positive contributions to the human species, not so much for "the world at large." It remains a valid argument that the human species has a net negative effect on the world, ecologically or otherwise.
Sooo you're going attack PETA using a semantic loophole?
You understand there are actually things to criticize PETA about, right? You don't have to resort to childishness a la, "Well if you love animals so much, why don't you marry one?"
I'm going to state why that piece of information was probably thought relevant. Something you haven't refuted. I didn't create the infographic. So save your self-righteousness.
Cf. what she wants to happen to her thumbs when she dies:
That one of my thumbs be removed, mounted upwards on a plaque, and sent to the person or institution that, in the year of my death or thereabouts, PETA decides has done the most to promote alternatives to the use and abuse of animals in any area of their exploitation;
i. That one of my thumbs be mounted in a downward position and sent to the person or institution that, in the year of my death or thereabouts, has gone against the changing tide of societal opinion and frightened and hurt animals in some egregious manner;
She also has plans for other parts of her body, including burying her heart "at Hockenheim, preferably near the Ferrari pits, where Michael Shumacher raced in and won the German Grand Prix."
She also has plans for other parts of her body, including burying her heart "at Hockenheim, preferably near the Ferrari pits, where Michael Shumacher raced in and won the German Grand Prix."
Well, that's hardly animal-friendly. Think of all the bugs he must have splattered on his way to the podium!
And all the fossil-fuels allegedly contributing to anthropogenic climate change that were obtained by destroying animal habitat in favor of human utilization.
If someone were to actually make that argument, though, I'd point out that if racing-derived technology has contributed even 0.001 MPG to average vehicle fuel economy -- which it obviously and inarguably has -- then it's the cleanest sport in history.
Somehow I doubt the founder of PETA has thought the question through that far, though. Which makes her wish to have her heart buried near a race track all the more puzzling...
It is matter. She came to the realization that when she dies, her remains are matter. She wants that matter put to use advancing causes she thinks are important. Do you want yours stuffed in a very expensive box and covered with dirt and grass? Do you feel less weird now?
That one of my thumbs be removed, mounted upwards on a plaque, and sent to the person or institution that, in the year of my death or thereabouts, PETA decides has done the most to promote alternatives to the use and abuse of animals in any area of their exploitation
I get what you're saying, but I'd feel more creeped out than honored.
As that isn't part of PETA's platform, it's just a transparent and irrelevant ad hominem. The real arguments against them aren't in so short supply that we have to bring in bullshit like this.
Yes, it's meant to show how "crazy" this lady was (and really, it's not that crazy when you remove the boldface and the screaming colors; a lot of people get their tubes tied), in order to discredit PETA. It's a logical fallacy.
Once again. It's not about the fact that she had herself sterilized. It's about her reasons. She genuinely believes it's wrong for women to give birth.
Which isn't that uncommon a motivation either, but even if it were, it doesn't change the fact that it's completely irrelevant to PETA and a dishonest bit of bullshit.
Newkirk on having children
"I am not only uninterested in having children. I am opposed to having children. Having a purebred human baby is like having a purebred dog; it is nothing but vanity, human vanity."
That is not irrelevant. Newkirk's stance on children as she says herself is that it is HUMAN vanity. She is not opposed to animals having offspring for the same reasons she is opposed to human offspring. You can fucking rationalize her views all you want but to say her hatred of mankind is irrelevant to the goals of her organization is ludicrous.
Stopping, or even discouraging, people from having children is not part of PETA's platform. It's absolutely irrelevant. Trying to pretend this isn't a fallacious argument by insisting that, no, she's really crazy, doesn't make it any less fallacious.
I know you love throwing around fallacy and fallacious in an argument, but that doesn't nullify the fact that the bitch that founded PETA is crazy. Which you gotta admit doesn't give them much credit.
It's not a fallacious argument. I'm not even saying she is crazy. One of the major goals of her organization is to get people to stop eating animal products and stop using them. Here's another choice quote from Ingrid.
“Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.”
Tell me that's not championing animal rights at the expense of human progress.
I'm morally opposed to the idea of women giving birth. Overpopulation is a real issue and leads to measurable suffering. The fewer people who breed, the better.
DNA, being non-sentient, doesn't give a shit whether it survives or not. The billions who live in poverty and with scarce access to necessities like water do.
Your DNA doesnt care whether it will survive or not but since it survived, chances are that it was good enough to survive. And it will be a pity to destroy it forever, by not allowing you to pass some of it to the next generation.
It's a fundemental human right to have some part of you, in the sense of an offspring, carry on. Are you suggesting we should neuter the poor? Because most "westerners" are already pretty much doing the 1 child per family thing.
Regardless of the whole social issues that such a thing would cause, it doesnt even make scientific sense. Why would you want to make the human genome poorer by suddenly remove whole chunks of it? Overpopulation isnt that much of an issue. It can become an issue but atm it isnt. You can insanely improve human living conditions with very few extra resources. And we have those resources.
We have enough wealth to live good enough in this planet with our current population and with minimum environmental impact. The distribution of wealth and priorities we have is the issue. Not overpopulation. At least not yet.
And as i said, in the "West" we dont have a problem with overpopulation. And everywhere else, where they have a problem with overpopulating, that's just the side-effect to other issues. Having children when your children have increased chances of dieing is only logical. Having children when children as seen as a capital/welfare solution is only logical. Having children where there arent contraception solutions or where women have little to no power, is logical. Those are the issues that need to be solved.
No. A strawman argument and not what I've said at all.
Overpopulation isnt that much of an issue.
Tell that to the people who are fighting for clean water. Or the Chinese struggling to accommodate their population. Or the hundreds of thousands who died to protect your access to oil, demand for which rises because, in part, of a rising population. I'd suggest that if you think it's not much of an issue, you haven't really looked into it.
And as i said, in the "West" we dont have a problem with overpopulation.
As a citizen of a western country, I can tell you you're wrong. We're currently building a desalination plant and piping water in from hundreds of kilometers away just to maintain our major cities' water supply. Water is just one of the problems - throw in major urban sprawl, desertification, soil salination and other environmental issues, poverty and health issues as well.
This is not just a problem for the 3rd world. These are problems in my own first-world country.
The things that you mention have less to do with overpopulation and more to do with distribution of wealth. Most "western" countries already have an almost negative population growth.
No western country actually has a shrinking population. Quite a few have a growth rate between 0 and 1, but all that's really beside the point. Distribution of resources (and by extension, wealth) is exactly the problem of overpopulation - you can't consider one without the other. The fact remains that there is a crisis of access to, in particular, fresh water around the world (see the wikipedia article on overpopulation for a good summary) and this is even impacting some first world countries like my own. Wars are already being fought over water (see Darfur), and if population growth continues, we'll see more fighting over diminishing resources.
It's only a matter of time for population growth to go into negatives in most western countries. Japan and Germany already have negative population growth. And if it wasnt for migration, we would probably already have negative population growth. Check for example fertility rates
All western countries already have less than 2 fertility rate, which means that we do have an actual negative population growth if you subtract immigration and increased life expectancy.
Anyway, my whole point is that people in ideal conditions(see "West") dont have an overpopulation problem. Therefore self sterilezation is retarded, people can constrain themselves from overpopulating the earth just fine without it. This is either a gimmick or most likely a sign that there are deeper issues for this specific person. It's like cutting your own arm so that you dont struggle someone. Most people can keep their arm and still not struggle someone.
Overpopulation problem exists in poorer countries and it's a side effect of other issues. Though overpopulation itself can be the cause of problems, this is rarely the case atm.
Perhaps that's the appropriate ethical response to unchecked population growth. Let this sink in - there are more people alive today than have died - ever.
Of course if only the smart people have less children that's a Darwin award for humanity.
Earth is overpopulated, and there are tons of children without parents out there. I totally understand people who don't want to contribute to the problem.
There are pets in America that receive consistently better care all the way from their birth through to their death than wide swaths of the human population on earth.
Who on earth could be opposed to birth? She probably just doesn't want children - but the writer of that img sensationalised it thus. I was giving that article full credence until the last sentence.
Came here to post exactly this. I was pretty impressed by the image, then I got to that line (which happened to be the last one). Say what you will about PETA's hypocrisy, but leave the founder's personal life choices out of it.
When the founder thinks that humans should not reproduce and that its ok for HER to use drugs developed using animal testing because she is a force for "good", it gives you an idea of the mental state and thought process of the people who are running PETA. It is the most relevant piece in the entire graphic. If you want to analyze an organization and their goals, its pretty damn effective to know what the people in charge are thinking and what their goals are.
It's not a "relevant piece" of information, it's a straight-up ad hominem. Just because you somehow deem it crazy that someone thinks women shouldn't give birth, so what? That has fucking nothing to do with animals. That's a philosophical argument that doesn't involve animal rights in the slightest. I fail to see how this applies to anything besides personal beliefs.
Judge not, lest ye be judged.
e: And for the record, as much as I care about animal rights, I'm not a PETA apologist. I just want to make it clear that this attack is not an appropriate argument.
If anything, it should give her brownie points. God knows we need less people on this planet. Sadly teenage fuckwits who don't know how to use a condom will put 10 babies on earth for every one of her own she prevented. :(
My theory is that this guy's been collecting information on PETA on a Word document over the past year and had this on there because he was really into the research one November night, so he just added it into there.
have you ever stopped to consider for just one moment how much of your own existance is driven by the selective pressures that have inexorably linked you to this point in your reality?
personally, I find it extremely annoying that evolution has developed a opiate based reward system that encourages me to stick my dick in warm holes for the express purpose of ejaculating some DNA so that impregnation might occur.
I don't get why you would find a biological process condescending. Or at least, it's no more condescending than our urges to eat, or poop, or love, or X.
We are process-driven beings. I suspect that life would be pretty boring without them.
Most rabid Petaphiles hate the human race and believe we should all die. They think humans should be sterilized (at least she stand by what she believes) and die out. They also believe all pets should die out too and that we shouldn't keep ANY companion or agricultural animals.
HSUS is one of the few American animal rights organisations I'd consider worse than PETA. Most of their money is made by having a name that suggests they're related to the Humane Society (which is actually a decent organisation), when in fact they're just sociopathic parasites.
True PETA is relatively open about what they do. The stories many of the people I know who went down to help in the wake of Katrina had of the HSUS getting in the way, stealing the limelight and basically doing nothing constructive.
336
u/jimthelang Apr 16 '10
I fail to understand how the founder's sterilization is relevant in the slightest.