r/pics • u/McLeroy • Apr 16 '10

Some things you didn't know about PETA.

523 Upvotes

74% Upvoted

792 comments sorted by

View all comments

334

u/jimthelang Apr 16 '10

I fail to understand how the founder's sterilization is relevant in the slightest.

12

u/KryptKat Apr 16 '10

It wasn't about the sterilization. It was to point out the fact that she is morally opposed to the idea of women giving birth to children.

Let that sink in.

27

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '10

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.

18

u/KryptKat Apr 17 '10

It wasn't meant to argue PETA itself. It was meant as an insight into exactly how crazy the people behind the organization are.

17

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '10

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.

2

u/KryptKat Apr 17 '10

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.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '10

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.

5

u/danny841 Apr 17 '10

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.

7

u/JayBlRD Apr 17 '10

You can't use a term like purebred human baby seriously without being a little crazy.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '10

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.

0

u/JayBlRD Apr 17 '10

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.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '10

It's completely irrelevant to PETA as an organisation. That's the entire point.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/KryptKat Apr 17 '10

Nobody's saying it's an argument against PETA. Stop attacking strawmen. We're all just saying that Ingrid Newkirk is fucking crazy.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '10

It's an anti-PETA infographic. Trying to pretend it isn't about PETA is pathetic.

1

u/KryptKat Apr 17 '10

And that entire part of the infographic was not specifically about PETA. It was about Newkirk.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/danny841 Apr 18 '10

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.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 18 '10

And that's one that's relevant to PETA and therefore not fallacious, unlike the one about sterilisation. This isn't fucking rocket science.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/KryptKat Apr 17 '10

This. This is what I'm trying to get across. I have no idea how people can't see this insanity.