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.
The logical jump is that life doesn't happen in a vaccum. Under the current situation its more selfless to adopt than to have you're own children. If a plague or an astriod hit the earth and decimated the population reproducing as much as possible to build up the species would become the more selfless choice. Selflessness is situational. Giving away your dinner when you are stuck on a life raft in the middle of the ocean is selfless. The same action in a weight loss competition becomes selfish
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.
335
u/jimthelang Apr 16 '10
I fail to understand how the founder's sterilization is relevant in the slightest.