why i'm glad peta exists
There's a lot of talk about an organization I'm sure many are familiar with, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA at Frizzen Sparks.
Bill, the freaky semi-libertarian author of Frizzen Sparks (who's actually been one of my best friends since like 1987, and still lives lives in my hometown in the enlightened bible belt state of Illinois) complains that the very premises of PETA are completely hypocritical. He is quite fond of dissecting their idiotic comments out of context a-la Rush Limbaugh (minus the oxycontin) and calling them (along with other liberals) 'moonbats'.
That's why I decided to write this short essay entitled, Why I'm glad PETA exists:
The fundamental idea of PETA, is that animals are sentient beings that should be afforded the same rights as human beings. In fact, from the PETA website:
PETA believes that animals deserve the most basic rights�consideration of their own best interests regardless of whether they are useful to humans. Like you, they are capable of suffering and have interests in leading their own lives; therefore, they are not ours to use�for food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation, or for any other reason.
So clearly, this is a pretty extreme view, that is perhaps a little more than 3 inches to the left of reality. But in my opinion, it is to our benefit that such a view exists.
Currently, the idea of ethical conduct towards animals is something that is pretty well scoffed at in most industries that stand to profit of animals. The meat industries view animals as basically inconvenient blocks of meat, and are really biding their time until they can have what they really want, which is basically tank grown boneless cubes of meat that fit precisely into their slicing equipment.
But they don't have that yet, and animals fight and get deseases and such. So they pump them up with chemicals, feed them each other, and basically do their best to produce the cheapest possible meat without animals actually getting Mad Cow.
Does this benefit the consumer? No. I don't need to go into what the industrial attitude towards food creates...Upton Sinclair and Eric Schlosser have covered the topic pretty well.
The point I'm making, is that the extreme of profit is one extreme, and there has to be the other extreme to balance it out.
It's sort of like the ACLU putting incredible time and resources into making sure that neo-nazis can say all kinds of fucked up things. It's not that I'm glad the ACLU is there so that innocent Nazi's can be defended...it's because I'm glad someone's there vociferously protecting the erosion of free speech.
So PETA is the extreme voice that keeps industries having to do with animal production (barely) from going to the extreme of profit, and being able to endlessly bilk the public about it with their bottomless PR dollars. This is a good thing.
Would even Frizzen Sparks disagree?
Comments
Personally, I don't really have any complaints about PETA's ethics, in fact I think they're admirable. I don't fully agree with them (I happen to enjoy eating a nice steak while wearing my leather jacket) but I can kinda understand where they're coming from.
Their PR methods borderline on the psychotic though (and in fact in some cases saying "borderline" is being generous) - and although I'm sure they just think they're holding a strong stance on issues, all it really does is makes the majority of the public think they're a huge bunch of wahoos.
It IS possible to support an issue without acting like a bunch of loonies, and unless they start toning it back that's what the public is going to continue seeing them as.
Posted by: S | February 13, 2004 9:29 PM
BTW, you wanna see "Bible Belt" go live in Tulsa for a while....
I lived less than a mile from Oral Roberts University.
*shudders just thinking about it*
Posted by: S | February 13, 2004 9:30 PM
In my not at all humble opinion, I see the idea of treating animals with a degree of respect admirable. BUT I also see them as a resource, a natural resource for we the "dominant" species to use. Unfortunately, we have forgitten about stewardship somewhere along the way. PETA takes a stand that borders on psychotic however, and I have absolutely no respect for this organization. They support eco-terrorism, they throw red paint on very expensive fur coats, they bitch about leather...yadda yadda. In the grand scheme of things, if hitting a monkey in the head with a hammer will cure cancer, I say, show me to the home depot. (not a serious comment, please no flames) I understand that cosmetic companies use animals for testing how irritating certain substances are to eyes, skin, etcetera, and I do NOT agree with this practice. If I was given the choice of alleviating the suffering of the noble cow, and starving, or having the cow suffer and being well fed, well guess what my choice is?
Posted by: LittleJoe | February 14, 2004 2:01 PM
Ooh, on the ACLU, I am all for freedom of speech, but unfortunately, that is NOT what the ACLU stands for. They stand for freedom to silence the majority with the will of the minority. Nowhere in the constitution of the United States of America does it state that you have a right to NEVER be offended. By pushing one viewpoint over another, the ACLU in effect cancels out their own moral high-ground.They espouse the virtues of free speech with one mouth, while desperately trying to suppress the free speech of everyone else with their other mouth. They strain their credibilty in my eyes by trying to change the moral fiber of society with a socialistic agenda of suppressing religious freedom for Judeo-Christian citizens. While destroying the morals our nation WAS founded on, they promote a viewpoint that personal responsisbility is virtually non-existant, and that the beliefs of a few hold more intrinsic value than the beliefs of others. This has been shown time and again through their choice of cases to take up, I do not have links in front of me or I would offer examples, but it is easy enough to find them. Google ACLU hypocrisy, and freedom of speech.
Posted by: LittleJoe | February 14, 2004 2:12 PM
I do disagree. Balance is a good thing, but instead of being the alternate voice, these guys are doing everything they can to get the government to enforce their agenda on the people.
That said, read my way-too-damn-long response on my blog here: http://WWW.frizzensparks.com/archives/000218.html
Posted by: Bill | February 14, 2004 5:17 PM
I have very little to add to this conversation...except that I want to take a moment to address what LittleJoe said. Part of PETA protests are indeed about throwing paint on furs and leather. what this ends up doing is causing someone to REPLACE the item, thus causing another death which is exactly what they threw the paint for in the first place. PETA might be a noble cause, but without experimenting on animals and findthing cures thru them, we might not be having this conversation because one of us might have died from the Black Plague or small pox.
Posted by: jay | February 16, 2004 9:31 AM
Good point Jay, groups like PETA (who destroy furs) and ELF (earth liberation front- the guys who burn down new subdivisions to oppose urban sprawl) are actually helping the profits of furriers and the lumber industry.
Irony at it's finest.
Posted by: Bill | February 16, 2004 9:51 AM
Just a heads up, I posted a continuation of this debate over on my blog...
Posted by: Bill | February 19, 2004 11:30 AM
You know what the great thing about that ACLU and the US constitution is? You can all post messages like this. Yes the ACLU has faults. And before I start another arguement, I can play devils advocate to all arguements for and against. As for PETA, they have the right to protest. Their methods are kind of questionable, but it is their right. As for them supporting groups that commit crimes. That is what the legal system is for. No, I don't support PETA. I'm a meat eating, leather wearing, historical reinactor that thinks animals were placed on the earth for my amusement and as a resource for what ever I want. If Peta wants to protest that fine. If PETA wants to try to have the town of Slaughterville change its name to Veggieville, even though the town is name for one of it's founding members, not a slaughter house. More power to them. But when a member of PETA shows up to a "Buck-skinning" event to lambast me for wearing a fox tail and having deer, beaver and other animal hides displayed and how they are offended. I'll just remind them history isn't pretty, but they knew what they where walking into.
Posted by: Contagion | February 19, 2004 3:35 PM
Yes, that is what the legal system is for, which is why I think they should get their tax-exempt status yanked for supporting domestic terrorists. As for their weird ass ad campaigns, they give me something to make fun of...
Posted by: Bill | February 20, 2004 6:36 AM