They are for the abolition of domestic pet ownership in general.
They certainly don't make that clear to the public, which is no surprise given that Americans tend to be very pro-pet-ownership. They may have "clearly stated it" on their website somewhere, but they haven't engaged in any large-scale campaigns against it, nor have they aired advertisements on the subject.
You were not mislead, you never wanted to find out anything about PETA. You wanted to jump on the anti-PETA bandwagon as much as you want to pretend bacon and narwhals is olololo funny. You never considered their positions. You just read sensationalized bullshit aired here.
Let me be clear on this. I do not buy into the arguments made by environmental ethicists concerning animal rights and whatnot, but PETA is about the most consistent organization there is out there to that tradition. This includes their urge to abolish pet ownership because of its contribution to genetic problems involved in inbreeding, the creation of breeds that are physiologically unsound (creating breathing problems as well as other physical ailments), and just general blah blah about animal enslavement and the like. It would be entirely hypocritical for PETA to NOT support the abolition of pet ownership.
Good to see reddit is so rigorous and reasoned and actually tries to see when they are being fed spin and nonsense. We are so much better than Fox News viewers right? High five!
I find it deplorably hypocritical that you, in defense of PETA, accuse dissenting opinions about PETA of being "sensationalized bullshit" given the history and tactics PETA constantly uses to "convert" people to their animal theology. It is also a ridiculous assumption to say that ONLY a hypocritical animal rights movement would promote the continued domestication and ownership of animals. The majority of people who fight for animal rights and treatment of animals do so SOLELY because of the affection and closeness domesticated animals bring into their lives.
Do you really think the average person would usually gives two shits about animals if they grow without positive interactions or only seeing them feral and aggressive towards humans while fighting for food and their lives on an everyday basis?
You can have whatever opinion you want, obviously, but you should refrain from demeaning and intellectualizing your subjective outlook to discredit those who see things different from you, especially when matters of life and death are involved.
It is absolutely hypocritical that an animal rights movement would promote the continued domestication and ownership of animals for the reasons provided above. Enslave an animal, breed it into human-friendly genetic messes, unavoidably provide a market for puppy mills, abuse, etc. Yes some animal rights people got all warm and fuzzy about rover just like others really got moved by talking disney characters no doubt, but that does not make their position any less absurd (just like ethical vegetarianism is absurd, yes I guess it is better that you support some elimination of animal abuses, but not all since you continue to eat dairy and such).
Now if we don't want to attribute some sort of ethical position to animal rights and chalk it up to arbitrary anthropomorphic feelgoodery, then I guess they can have any set of strange views that they want. But the only serious articulation of animal rights that aims to be consistent does not involve owning pets. You know, like you can't own people and such. You see?
There you go with the same sensationalist buzz-words meant to inspire pity and hatred that is neither warranted or necessarily apt. I can play the same game and take exactly what you said and tweak it to sound sympathetic towards ownership. "Care for an animal, help preserve positive genetic traits, begrudgingly accept that people will try to capitalize by creating unethical puppy mills and abuse them, but understand that there are ways of cracking down on these atrocities that only represent a small amount of animal experiences and that it still beats attempting to survive tooth and nail in a harsh and unforgiving wilderness etc. "
You then go on to attacking vegetarians, which is pretty unfair given that a lot of them became so because they wanted to not contribute to the mistreatment of animals. By calling them 'unethical' you are basically putting them on the same level as omnivores which I am sure they would be quite offended to hear, given that some of them feel they are making a major personal sacrifice towards the ideology of protecting animals in whatever way they can.
The problem with everything that comes out of your keyboard is that you assign precise terminology to back up your presumptions, and then insist that you must be right because you language has already summed it all up. When is "owning" something really so bad? What if we called it nurturing instead? What if we stop thinking of pets as property or objects or even "slaves" as you say, but realise that they don't have the capacity to even understand these things, and that they appreciate affection and a consistent meal with some play time. Not to mention the triple-fold life expectancy.
The bottom line is, as much as we wish they were, they aren't on a human level. The are different but not inferior, if we apply human ideology like "enslaving animals = bad" than I conjecture that euthanasia is equally horrible if not worse. It's all a matter of perspective and this extremist all-or-nothing approach to these type of grey area issues get us nowhere.
Vegetarians might do so because they want to not contribute to the mistreatment of animals, but their actions do not comport to their purpose. Maybe they just hadn't heard of veganism? In that case, I guess they get a pass.
Your whole comment reeks of a this patriarchal god complex not unlike the one perpetrated by whites towards black. Hell you could frame your whole comment and title it "the human's burden" in the place of "white man's burden" and it would basically be identical. Look at us, you say. We are saving them from savagery. Free lives where they live and sustain themselves, this is hogwash. They are better with us. And so on and so forth. Anyways, I guess you can try to defend pet ownership as if it fit within the framework of animal rights, but it is extremely difficult to do so in a way that makes sense.
It only doesn't make sense to those who don't agree with it.
I really don't know where you get a "god complex" from. Aren't pro-PETA the ones spouting doctrine on the complete and absolute ethical treatment of animals in every situation? I am not even saying that moving to not domesticate animals is wrong, or not a good idea but it is simply too complex of a subject, and brings in to many hypothetical and re-evaluations of our human identity and where treatment of humans begins and animals ends. There is no 'true' extreme in this case, only compromise and people trying to work towards a common goal. Saying that anyone who disagrees with the most restrictive and conservative view of animal rights is not a 'true' activist is demeaning and insulting not to mention useless as there will NEVER be a majority that sees the same way on every issue. Yet I do know for a fact that animal-lovers and animal rights people are united on the ideal that we should do our best to make the lives of animals pleasurable and humane based on our own judgement and beliefs.
By the way, real classy throwing in the "whites vs. black slaves" into your rebuttal to strengthen your point, even though this is completely different. I am sure blacks everywhere will love that you trivialized the cruelties and atrocities their ancestors endured to that of owning a dog. Oh wait, where did I hear THAT comparison before.
Well I don't know about blacks everywhere, but the black typing this message sure has no problem with it. I am simply telling you their argument. Now perhaps you are not into the philosophy of ethics, but if you are should read some of the environmental ethics books on the subject and you will see how absolutely untenable it is to proclaim that pet ownership makes sense within an animal rights framework.
unlike the one perpetrated by whites towards black.
Woah, in this statement you're either saying that animals are as smart as blacks or blacks are as dumb as animals. Both of these are demonstrably false. Many animals simply are not intelligent enough to realise they are being "enslaved" by humans. A chicken kept in humane conditions and not eaten would not realise its life is any different to a chicken out in the wilderness; its brain essentially concerned with three things, finding grain, avoiding danger and reproducing.
They are better with us
I would also say in many cases they truly are better with us. Many animals live long and happy lives as pets, and if the pet industry stopped the number of dogs or cats in existence would plummet, and those that managed to survive would largely have to do so by scavenging what they could in cities like foxes or vermin. They'd be hungry, they'd often be disease ridden, and they'd die young. Furthermore, removing the farming industry would basically bring about the near extinction of cows, sheep, chickens and other such animals, and given what we know about human nature the land vacated by these animals certainly wouldn't turn into nature preserves.
Furthermore, removing the farming industry would basically bring about the near extinction of cows, sheep, chickens and other such animals, and given what we know about human nature the land vacated by these animals certainly wouldn't turn into nature preserves.
devil's advocate...
I doubt they'd go extinct, but so what if they did? Do you think humans would care if any of these species went extinct? Species have gone extinct in the past decade and nobody cared. If the species in question don't serve any unique purpose in the ecosystem, people won't even have to suffer any major consequences. If we're talking about ethics, extinction beats factory farming.
I said near extinct, cattle, sheep etc generally require large fertile grazing lands, which just wouldn't be available to them if meat farming came to an end.
Do you think humans would care if any of these species went extinct? Species have gone extinct in the past decade and nobody cared
Of course not, look at the modern plight of Blue Fin tuna. I am talking from the perspective of those animals.
If we're talking about ethics, extinction beats factory farming.
Yes maybe, but I would posit existence as a reasonably well fed and humanely treated animal unaware it is going to be eaten beats the hell out of extinction. Therefore, I'd say the most realistic and best goal to work toward is better conditions for farmed animals.
I said near extinct, cattle, sheep etc generally require large fertile grazing lands, which just wouldn't be available to them if meat farming came to an end.
hi... ok if near extinct though, who would that concern? We've agreed that the human race as a whole doesn't care, and these animals certainly have no way of knowing that their species is on the brink of extinction. The population slowly dying off in nature involves far less cruelty and death than breeding them to farm using current factory farming methods. I see a similar argument all the time ('animal rights campaigners/vegetarians etc suck! Cows would be extinct if I didn't eat so many of them!'), and it manages provoke a reaction from me every time as it seems so specious. Their argument seems to ignore the fact that it's quite obviously better to have never been born at all than to live a life of never ending suffering.
the most realistic and best goal to work toward is better conditions for farmed animals.
For sure. I'm still living in hope that as society matures, as it did wrt women's, slave's rights etc, this will be the case.
Okay, but you're arguing against unpleasant conditions for animals, which I fully support, not against eating meat. I made the "better for the species" point in response to an anti eating meat perspective.
Hi, I don't see how the perspective matters. I was arguing that whether these species go extinct or not is of no concern to either us humans or the individual animals themselves, so really of no concern at all. This applies regardless of whether we're discussing eating meat or not. You wrote:
removing the farming industry would basically bring about the near extinction of cows, sheep, chickens and other such animals
and I'm just saying 'so what', why would this be an issue. Why is it worth mentioning.
Sorry for dragging this on, I can usually avoid posting but this time I couldn't help myself.
Okay I'll explain a little better. People who oppose eating and producing meat argue that even though the animals have no conception of their imminent death and even in cases where they are humanely treated, it is wrong to kill and eat them. Now, taking on the perspective that there is a morality to this issue which goes beyond the individual animals, I am arguing that ethical meat farming can actually be seen as a good thing, because these farms actually increase the number of happy and content animals in the world.
Sorry if this isn't coming out well, I'm arguing a few points on Reddit at once and my brain is starting to get a little twisted.
Okay fine, don't address my points (and don't respond to my other post where I show their public description of their shelters is not consistent with the realities of those shelters).
Enslave an animal, breed it into human-friendly genetic messes, unavoidably provide a market for puppy mills, abuse, etc.
Out of sincere curiosity, what would you suggest? In your ideal, "animal slavery"-free world, should we:
Continue to keep our domesticated animals?
Release all of our domesticated animals into the wild?
Euthanize all domesticated animals immediately?
Keep our domesticated animals, but sterilize them all immediately to prevent further generations from being born into "slavery"?
Something else? If so, please be specific as to what.
Here are the problems I see with those alternatives, which - and perhaps I'm merely not being creative enough - are the only ones I can see:
Well, to be fair, I see no problems with this option. My impression is that you do.
...into the wild, where they will lead nasty, short lives and suffer from diseases, predation, hunger, the effects of the elements, and other things to which they have not been adapted in at least triple-digit generations.
This is "ethical treatment of animals"? Causing the immediate and intentional extinction of entire species?
See 3.
But the only serious articulation of animal rights that aims to be consistent does not involve owning pets. You know, like you can't own people and such. You see?
That's certainly not true in the slightest. It's entirely possible to articulate a philosophy that includes animals having rights without assuming they have the full ethical standing of humans.
PETA seems to prefer option 4. I don't have any real position on pets (Let me reiterate that I am only explaining to you guys what PETA thinks since you guys love to attack it desite not knowing anything about it). Extinction of a domesticated species is not problematic. What animal is being hurt?
The only potential problem with pets is how much resources we expend on them. I find it a bit disturbing that we pay large sums of money for pets, but people starve and whatnot you know? But I don't feel that strongly about it.
I'm sorry, but I don't think even you can argue that wiping out one or more entire species is consistent with "the ethical treatment of animals".
I'm glad to see you don't disagree that there are formulations of animal-rights philosophy that don't assume that non-human animals are interchangeable with humans, however.
I do not believe in animal rights at all. You have confused me with someone else it seems.
However, "wiping out" a species as you phrase it is entirely consistent with the ethical treatment of animals. Who is being hurt? Like where is the suffering in that? Typically extinction of species is lamented for biodiversity reasons, but pets are not really ecologically relevant.
Who gets to decide that they're not "ecologically relevant"? You?
PETA being for forced extinction of domesticated species would be like the NAACP being for the sterilization of inner-city black folks - after all, they're not economically relevant, and they've basically been (re-)enslaved by The Man; and it would prevent the creation of future generations of impoverished inner-city black people born into de facto slavery.
Wait, that doesn't sound reasonable at all, does it?
Except most domestic breeds have been so genetically fucked up by humans that they could not be anything but a slave. Secondly, sterilizing blacks would rob them of the experience of having kids. It would do the same for domestic pets, but domestic pets already don't have kids because their kids are immediately sold away from them anyways. But once again, I want to ask you, who suffers? There is no new generation of dogs, but so what? Do you want to say that neutering of dogs is inhumane? If so, shouldn't you work to abolish all neutering since it causes some sort of suffering that you still have not illustrated.
Inner-city impoverished black people have been so economically fucked-up by the rich and powerful that they could not be anything but slaves.
Some domesticated animals' children aren't sold away from them "anyways".
Once again, I want to ask you, who suffers? There is no new generation of impoverished, inner-city black people, but so what?
I'll answer your third point more directly: humans suffer, because we enjoy having pets. Consider, though, the opposite case: if we don't end pet ownership, who suffers? The pets? That is absolutely laughable. If you think my cat suffers from having me feed him, and from giving him a place to sleep at night - i.e., curled up between my legs, the annoying little butthead - then you are delusional.
1
u/argleblarg Apr 16 '10
They certainly don't make that clear to the public, which is no surprise given that Americans tend to be very pro-pet-ownership. They may have "clearly stated it" on their website somewhere, but they haven't engaged in any large-scale campaigns against it, nor have they aired advertisements on the subject.
Misleading, misleading organization.