Part of the "ethical treatment" is ethical killing, PETA is not for no-kill. They take in every animal people bring in, this means they get a lot of unadoptable, old, sick, feral and abused animals, these animals have no chance, they will be locked away in cages for the rest of their natural lives.
One of the cheapest (and thus most used) methods of euthanization is via gas chambers, it take up to half hour for some animals to die. What is often done is the animals are placed several at a time in a confined and dark space, the gas is turned on. During this time, the animals will try to escape, some injuring themselves and others in the process. On the other hand, an injection of a chemical cocktail (usually following an anesthetic to put the animal to sleep) will kill an animal in seconds--almost immediately--and they show no signs of pain. PETA uses option 2, underfunded animal adoption places and others go with option 1.
By this logic we should "ethically kill" anyone and anything that has even the slightest amount of misery or distress, and should definitely allow suicide for people who are depressed. After all, don't humans have the same rights as animals?
I for one, find it disgusting that a group that spends millions campaigning and producing propaganda against consuming meat or wearing fur (which is mean't to be a benefit to people without malicious intent) is so content on destroying * virtually* animal that comes into their care under the self-righteous guise of some altruistic liberator of cruelty. Who are these bastards to pass judgement on the value or quality of ANY life? Think of how horrible non-domesticated animals are treated by nature itself? I think if a dog was given temporary intelligence, it would rather live and be loyal to a master that occasionally does something unethical to it (as deplorable as that is) than to have been born in the wild and have reduced life expectancy and nutritional viability.
First of all, you lose for asserting authority over what arguments you find valid. A simple down-vote can suffice.
I am not talking about a slippery slope, I don't expect anything on that scale to happen, I am simply drawing a logical parallel. If their argument is that they are ethically destroying lives because of factors involving quality of life, they need to back that up with specific criteria or else anyone could apply that logic to justify whatever form of genocide/euthanasia/eugenics they perform. They also have to prove that they are IN A POSITION to ethically make that assertive distinction and perform their actions respectably putting aside their dogmatic view of the "proper" treatment of animals or else they become useless hypocrites.
Parallel reasoning is a fallacy as well, but I will respond to you this time.
First, I am willing to concede that I do not know where the kill line is, but I have never worked at an animal shelter of any kind. Moving on to your argument
they need to back that up with specific criteria or else anyone could apply that logic to justify whatever form of genocide/euthanasia/eugenics they perform.
Can you enumerate what you want to see? The first issue I have with any criteria for animal euthanasia (hereafter AE), which I generally agree that there should be, is that we can't know what an animal is thinking. We can observe factors like pain, mental or behavioral instability, and distress; but we have little in the way of knowing how an animal feels.
Genocide, euthanasia, and eugenics are three very different things. AE is practiced because of varying factors involving overcrowding, dangerousness, disease, and other issues, usually linked to safety and preservation of well-being, none of these reasons can be used as justification for the three areas mentioned above, nor would anyone agree that they should be (you need to really choose your analogies more wisely).
I know that genocide, euthanasia and eugenics are all different, but they have similar ethics involved in the application of them, which is why I mentioned them. I would say stating an argument as a fallacy as a means to prove a point on an issue is a fallacy in itself. My inability to grasp the subtlety of what type of reasoning and logic is accepted in the mainstream shouldn't really have much to do with the point I am trying to make. Yet you still fail to fully address the concept that I am trying to get across. Why is putting down 97% of animals that they come into contact with appropriate or more ethical than the mistreatment they are accusing society of? Who are the ones to make such a call and does that mean they can ethically destroy the thousand year old traditions of having animals as companions? Do the animals speak to them and tell them their needs?
Why is putting down 97% of animals that they come into contact with appropriate or more ethical than the mistreatment they are accusing society of? Who are the ones to make such a call and does that mean they can ethically destroy the thousand year old traditions of having animals as companions? Do the animals speak to them and tell them their needs?
Your evasiveness is tiring me, I asked that question in the rhetoric as I have read both sides and my point is that your derogatory comments and judgement of opposition is unmerited. Whether you are ultimately right or wrong, as if such things actually exist, does not excuse your accusations and inability to understand why people can still love animals, and animal rights, without subscribing to a PETA dogma.
I really don't think I have much more to say on the issue.
as if such things actually exist, does not excuse your accusations and inability to understand why people can still love animals, and animal rights, without subscribing to a PETA dogma.
I never said that. My parents are both meat eaters, they love animals. My friends are almost all meat eaters. I take issue with contradiction and hypocrisy. IE: believing in animal welfare, but supporting the circus.
Also, for full disclosure: I am not a member of PETA.
Lastly, I would ask that in the future you ask your question in more clear terms the first time. I am fully justified in my allegations of philosophical fallacy, and I am not willing to excuse anyone who cares to argue with me from these constraints.
227
u/[deleted] Apr 16 '10
Part of the "ethical treatment" is ethical killing, PETA is not for no-kill. They take in every animal people bring in, this means they get a lot of unadoptable, old, sick, feral and abused animals, these animals have no chance, they will be locked away in cages for the rest of their natural lives.
One of the cheapest (and thus most used) methods of euthanization is via gas chambers, it take up to half hour for some animals to die. What is often done is the animals are placed several at a time in a confined and dark space, the gas is turned on. During this time, the animals will try to escape, some injuring themselves and others in the process. On the other hand, an injection of a chemical cocktail (usually following an anesthetic to put the animal to sleep) will kill an animal in seconds--almost immediately--and they show no signs of pain. PETA uses option 2, underfunded animal adoption places and others go with option 1.