PETA and HSUS

[The Snark]

Thistles, I'm speaking to you and sidelineing everyone else for the moment. I've asked over and over, on this forum and others, for the derogatory crowd to cite their evidence. Information they have sleuthed, investigated and deducted. It is not forthcoming. There is a reason for that. Their opinions are are ideologies. Ideas given to them. Check out the debate classes in Sociology. They cannot answer your questions because you are asking for the blanks to be filled in. When people weigh in with ideologies they are working from some form of doctrine given them by other people. in-doctrine-ation. As a child that has been told certain things by an authority they recognize and respect. But if you ask that child why, they can't answer. They are only reiterating the information they have been given. With the adult it is taken one step further. They hear what they want to hear, and then, as in this forum, repeat the information. Part of that is born of insecurity. A hefty part. Imagine a child discovering it's care provider is wrong. It's frightening. They don't want to hear it. They only want positive re-enforcements.

When I ask for them to cite the facts they have gleaned, along the lines of a reasonably well written police report, they cannot answer. Their information is only from the news sources they wanted to hear. When they read news, or watch it, they go to their favorite news sources and shun the ones that contradict the indoctrinations. As so, no, your questions are unlikely to be answered.

However, one should always do oneself a favor of very carefully reading what those that disagree with you have to say. If nothing else you gain insights into them and the doctrines they are addicted to. Yes, addicted is the correct word. Psychological addiction. The reason for paying attention to them is to allow them to help you go beyond yourself. Gain their insights, their wisdoms. You need not take their doctrines as your own, but in the case of the rabidly anti AR people, they offer insights into the opposition. Know your enemy, right? As General George Patton yelled after he kicked Rommel's hiney in a battle in north Africa, "You dumb B*st*rd! I read your book!"

General Rommel had written and published a treatise on tank warfare and strategies. Patton was no fool. He didn't go, 'UHG! Fox News! Or, Greenpeace propaganda! Burn it!'

The other point is, if you find yourself becoming emotional, someone else is controlling you. Pulling your chain. Everybody has that reaction. It's normal. Another form of insecurity but one easily dealt with. Just take all your frustrations, package them up, then let them rip. At the unheeding sky, or as I did a while back on this thread, blowing off steam, letting go of their control of me and moving on. Everything everyone says is valid in some form. Don't let your emotions fog up your senses. Blow it off and move on.

So no, they haven't read most of what you have written. They don't want to hear it. Same here. I don't care. There are many many battles to be fought on this and many other fronts. If you find yourself slamming your head against a doctrine wall, choose another direction, and keep on fighting. They are the ones that are losing, by hiding behind their selectively made ivory towers with rose colored windows. The less filled of ideologies you are the more freedom your have to chose when and where to stand up for your proven to be true beliefs.

 

[Elytra and Antenna]

I blame the internet and not just mr. internet.

 

[Thistles]

Thistles, I'm speaking to you and sidelineing everyone else for the moment. I've asked over and over, on this forum and others, for the derogatory crowd to cite their evidence. Information they have sleuthed, investigated and deducted. It is not forthcoming. There is a reason for that. Their opinions are are ideologies. Ideas given to them...
...When I ask for them to cite the facts they have gleaned, along the lines of a reasonably well written police report, they cannot answer. Their information is only from the news sources they wanted to hear. When they read news, or watch it, they go to their favorite news sources and shun the ones that contradict the indoctrinations. As so, no, your questions are unlikely to be answered.

Oh, I don't expect an answer. I just don't want her to get away with it. It drives me crazy in debates when one makes a point and the other just drives on as if it was never made. You need to answer every question to have a solid base. She's too blinded by her assumptions to even read what I've said. It's almost funny how she keeps attacking a phantom opponent instead of directly answering me. She puts words in my mouth, assumes I behave in certain ways and then attacks that person even when I've already said the contrary. She's fighting that straw man so hard, and still looking to make ad hominem attacks. As if what I personally do has any bearing on what is right or wrong...

However, one should always do oneself a favor of very carefully reading what those that disagree with you have to say. If nothing else you gain insights into them and the doctrines they are addicted to. Yes, addicted is the correct word. Psychological addiction. The reason for paying attention to them is to allow them to help you go beyond yourself. Gain their insights, their wisdoms. You need not take their doctrines as your own, but in the case of the rabidly anti AR people, they offer insights into the opposition. Know your enemy, right? As General George Patton yelled after he kicked Rommel's hiney in a battle in north Africa, "You dumb B*st*rd! I read your book!"

General Rommel had written and published a treatise on tank warfare and strategies. Patton was no fool. He didn't go, 'UHG! Fox News! Or, Greenpeace propaganda! Burn it!'

I've made that mistake before. I actually dropped an ethics class because I was uncomfortable with the discussion about eating meat. I ate meat at the time, but still considered myself an animal lover. The class made me feel guilty and I had no good defense for my behavior so I just removed myself from the environment. I didn't alter the behavior that was the source of the guilt - I just avoided self-scrutiny. I'm still ashamed of that. I wasn't honest with myself and I continued to hurt animals for my own pleasure as a result.

The other point is, if you find yourself becoming emotional, someone else is controlling you. Pulling your chain. Everybody has that reaction. It's normal. Another form of insecurity but one easily dealt with. Just take all your frustrations, package them up, then let them rip. At the unheeding sky, or as I did a while back on this thread, blowing off steam, letting go of their control of me and moving on. Everything everyone says is valid in some form. Don't let your emotions fog up your senses. Blow it off and move on.

This thread isn't making me emotional. I'm used to people behaving just like this. What makes me emotional is knowing the torment that billions of animals experience unnecessarily every year, the damage that their painful existence does to the world and the general indifference of the human population to their plight.

---------- Post added 11-15-2013 at 11:31 AM ----------

I have a genuine question for Thistle, Snark, and anyone else who insists on putting humans and animals on morally-equivalent grounds:

"Based on what, exactly?"

Ok, I have a little bit of time before work. Tomorrow will be my first day off in 2 weeks, so I'll finish up then what I don't get to today.

I do not think animals and humans are morally equivalent. Humans are an animal, but we are a very unique and, dare I say, unnatural, animal. Humans alone have the capacity for morality. Humans alone have expanded far beyond environments that are suitable for their survival in a natural state. Humans alone can drastically alter the entire planet. Humans alone have figured out how to leave earth. We are not the same as other animals. We have much greater capabilities and understanding, and therefore more responsibility.

Now, I fully understand your moral outrage... I've heard it before. What I don't understand is that I invariably hear the MOST moral outrage for animal rights from the people with an agnostic or atheist worldview. This is completely incoherent to me, and I am just curious how you've come to justify the otherwise overwhelming cognitive dissonance that comes along with simultaneously holding the views that: A) there is no universal morality, and B) to the extent that morality obtains, animals are on equal footing with humans.

We all make at least one assumption in our world view: that any of this is real. I don't think you'll find any atheist who would agree that there is no morality. You might find a psycho who uses that philosophy to justify his actions, though. The atheists that I know all agree that there is morality, but stop short of calling it absolute or universal. I think we can all agree that, for example, pleasure is preferable to suffering. That's universal. The origin of this sentiment doesn't matter. It works, so we've stuck with it. For social animals like humans there is a sense of right and wrong that is inborn. Dogs, ants, elephants and humans have codes of conduct that govern our social behavior, and these can change. Society itself evolves, and with it our ideas about what is and is not acceptable.

As I said, I am an atheist but I was raised in a Christian family. I was taught that God gave humans dominion over the earth and told us to eat and wear animals. Isaiah 51:6 says "the earth will wear out like a garment." These are the defenses my mother and sister give when I ask how they justify their disregard for nature and animals. As an atheist, I don't have permission from a deity to destroy the planet. Earth is, to our knowledge, an experiment without a control. This is a unique planet with a unique system that has given rise to unique inhabitants. We don't know how our actions will change this system. From a purely selfish perspective, the things we are doing may threaten our species and way of life. We know for sure that we are already drastically changing individual ecosystems and locations. I

If one is truly committed to a naturalistic worldview (i.e., there is no spiritual dimension, or that the only things that are "real" are what we can perceive from our five senses), then it makes little sense to pretend that we have any reason or higher purpose in protecting the environment, animals, or even other people for that matter. They are just competing species in a grand ecosystem that, through chance and happenstance, has allowed us to co-exist and this particular point in time... why on earth does that carry ANY moral weight?

What you want here is a full blown discussion of secular morality. Why do atheists not kill anyone they want? How do we know how to be good? It goes back to social constructs and self-interest, in my opinion. If I'm known for being a thief, I'll be excluded. That sucks for me, so it's better that I behave myself, no? Also, again, we all kind of agree on the basics of what is and isn't good. We obviously disagree on the specifics, but usually it takes a religion to make people really screwed up.

Why are Black Rhinos more morally-weighted than fruit flies? Why does it matter if people hunt a species to extinction?

I actually have mixed feelings about extinction. Something like 99% of all species to ever exist are now extinct. Extinction is a part of nature. Species that work thrive. Those that are obsolete or ill-suited fade out. That's just how things are. I'm totally ok with giant pandas going extinct. They just aren't cut out for existence. Bye, pandas! What I'm certainly not ok with is humans destroying things almost arbitrarily regardless of how well they perform in the environment they evolved to fit. We don't know the repercussions of these extinctions. They still have a job to do or a niche to fill. To return to an anthropocentric view, who are we to decide which organisms are worthwhile today? For example, my grandmother would wipe out all spiders given the chance. I enjoy spiders personally. They have useful properties medically. They fill an important niche ecologically. She doesn't know or appreciate that. What if the dodo bird droppings could have cured cancer?

Isn't that what animals DO??? If we are morally equivalent with animals, then it seems that those of you arguing in favor of animal RIGHTS are arguing in exactly the opposite direction... animals would hunt us to extinction without a second thought, because that's what animals DO. Why are you so indignant at humans for doing what animals DO, when you've just gotten done explaining that we are morally-equivalent to animals and therefore hold equal moral weight?

Animals try to survive. We are doing WAY more than simply surviving. Again, I don't think we are morally equivalent. We can see the effects of our actions. A beaver doesn't know that it's messing up a stream when it builds a dam. A cat doesn't know it's causing pain to another creature when it kills a mouse. What we are doing is "shitting where we eat." And we should know better.

If we just did the "smart" thing, we wouldn't have to worry about morals so much imo. There seems to be a lot of eco-indoctrination these days via NGOs and by the government. Some of the kids these days almost seem to be taught to hate their self because they are human and, "killing the planet".

I strongly disagree. There is very little ECO-indoctrination. It stands out so much because it is the opposite of how we conduct ourselves in our daily lives. "OMG RECYCLE? Those ECOFREAKS are really out of hand to keep forcing that on us! And don't get me started on those pushy vegans!" These are minorities and unusual, so they stand out. For example, I have been witnessed to by so many more Christians and their religion is so much more prevalent in our culture than Mormons, but people freak out when Mormons knock on their door. It's an uncommon view, so you notice it.

A lot of money to be made in carbon taxing.

Bingo. Money is god and meat makes LOTS OF MONEY.

imo the planet is extremely resilient, it doesn't care anyway but of course it's good to keep the environment clean, simply the smart thing to do. It really comes down to how and what we do that affects us, I think that's semi-hidden concern for most people that is usually expressed with emotions and caring. We protect people to protect ourselves, we want to protect the environment so that we can live in a better environment. I wouldn't have a problem with Poison Ivy going extinct! We want the Black Rhino around because "we" like to see the Black Rhino. I wonder what the Black Rhino tastes like, mmmmmm, Black Rhiiinoooo.

How do you know the planet is resilient? Will the rock we're on disappear because of us? Probably not. Will the surface change because of us? It already has. If you can't get people to be responsible for altruistic reasons you have to appeal to their selfish nature. The problem is, as Snark says, even something we find inconvenient like poison ivy might have a hidden benefit to us.

This is really general and just addresses specifics you guys raised. I don't have any more time now, but I can flesh this out more later if there's interest.

 

[The Snark]

Priceless

We obviously disagree on the specifics, but usually it takes a religion to make people really screwed up.

Now and then these forums cough up real jewels.

 

[ShredderEmp]

Thistles: Religion doesn't always screw people up. You called me screwed up. Also, I haven't come across that verse in the Bible about it being ok to massacre animals, but I have read the one saying that God put us here as caretakers of the planet. Although I do admit that we never took much interest in doing that.

And just so you know, not all atheists are perfect either.

 

[Thistles]

Thistles: Religion doesn't always screw people up. You called me screwed up.

I did not. Check your distribution. I said "usually it takes a religion," meaning that usually really screwed up people are religious. That is nothing like saying all religious people are screwed up. That is also not saying all screwed up people are religious. You might be perfectly normal, and a serial killer might not be at all religious. I am saying that 100% of suicide bombers and sacrificers of humans and circumcisers of females are religious. That's a level of screwed up you can only reach on religion. That is also neither here nor there.

Also, I haven't come across that verse in the Bible about it being ok to massacre animals, but I have read the one saying that God put us here as caretakers of the planet. Although I do admit that we never took much interest in doing that.

My family interpreted Genesis 1:26 to mean they "rule" the planet. I tried to convince my sister it meant she should be a good steward and take care of God's creation, and she countered with the verse I mentioned before as well as the dietary laws which make it clear that people are allowed to eat animals and specify how. There are thousands of interpretations of the Bible and Christian denominations, so of course that one interpretation is not representative of all of them.

And just so you know, not all atheists are perfect either.

Of course not. I never said anything approaching that.

Snark, I hope that wasn't offensive. Again, I'm not saying all religious people are screwed up. I'm saying religion is a great way to make an otherwise moral person accept some really immoral things.

 

[The Snark]

I am saying that 100% of suicide bombers and sacrificers of humans and circumcisers of females are religious. That's a level of screwed up you can only reach on religion. That is also neither here nor there.

ROTFLMAO.

Avoid blanket statements as there will always be some exception to any given rule, and people absolutely delight in pouncing on the exception. You know, sort of the antithesis of sound scientific analysis. But anyway, the vast majority of wars fought on this planet had religions behind the scenes, pumping the BS as hard and fast as they can. Along those lines came a little paradox: one of if not the most effective wars ever waged was the Genghis Khan's little outing and one of his stern edicts to his troops was to respect the cultures and religions of the peoples they conquered. Thus he could blast across Asia and into Europe without constantly having to watch his back.

 

[Thistles]

Yep, yep. I started posting to correct some inaccurate generalizations. I do think that those 3 things in particular I mentioned are restricted to religion but of course I might be incorrect. I don't think an exception or two damages my point. Brb, sun god needs a human heart.

Isn't it true that Genghis Khan killed so many people that there was a notable improvement in the environment evident for years after?

Yep, just did a search: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...eople-forests-grew-carbon-levels-dropped.html

 

[The Snark]

The Genghis Khan rewrote the book on ruthless as well as writing his own manual on horse warfare. He just didn't go out of his way making unnecessary enemies. One account tells that on the retreat of his armies the villages he had passed by welcomed his troops with open arms. Keep in mind there are three accounts of his antics. The European traditional, the more researched modern, and the Asian. A lot of the info taught in skoolz about him to this day was dirt slinging ala the Christian's ... interesting take on history.
I don't think Europe had any sensible environmental studies done in the 12th century. There may be some from Oriental scholars but the earth was still flat and the sun rotated around it in Europe back then. Copernicus quaint theories were still a ways off.

 

[Thistles]

The study was a recent one measuring the change in carbon levels. It certainly wasn't done at the time. I honestly don't remember anything school taught me about him. I changed areas and schools so much that my background is pretty patchy.

 

[ShredderEmp]

History books in my opinion only focus on the empires and revolutions. Mine never went into depth about Hannibal Barca or Genghis Khan. They talked about the empire and legacy of him, but nothing more.

 

[Formerphobe]

the Genghis Khan's little outing...

ROFL
I've been avoiding this thread, but peek in occasionally. Thanks, Snark, for a good laugh!

 

[The Snark]

History books in my opinion only focus on the empires and revolutions. Mine never went into depth about Hannibal Barca or Genghis Khan. They talked about the empire and legacy of him, but nothing more.

The study was a recent one measuring the change in carbon levels. It certainly wasn't done at the time. I honestly don't remember anything school taught me about him. I changed areas and schools so much that my background is pretty patchy.

Your comments point out a glaring weakness of the American public school system as well as reminding me of it. The quality of education varies from state to state and the modern measurement of education actually achieved is based not on in depth knowledge and comprehension but the conform and comply standard. That's just a tad frightening when one reflects upon ones own actual knowledge. Future Einstein or good for becoming a dirt farmer, a persons future is up to the whims of some highly questionable school boards filled with some highly questionable people. Compared to the level and quality of education most Europeans receive, the average American gets a start with a handicap. That is an established fact from some interesting tests performs upon the juvenile inmates of the correction facilities. As example, in California, swaths of the inmates are given a modified version of the SAT which produces results in year and month. The average juvenile inmate is technically 16 years old and in the 10th grade. But the applied SAT places their education level at or below the 5th grade.

That's just a little disconcerting when one takes into account the average Americans news source is Fox and they are supposed to be making informed sensible decisions in regards to the environment, animal and human rights, and what flavor of cheese the moon is made of.


Right after I typed the above I bonked into the following Moronic Machinations Esq, Pvt Pty Ltd crud. This is impartial and sensible thinking? (From Huff Po., verified by AP). This is the problem of blanket endorsement or opposition. All PETA bashers now get to be grouped together and share the mentality of South Dakota Factory Farmers and what they want to see on their parade float.

New York's Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade is seeing quite the squabble as Joan Jett has been ousted from the parade's South Dakota float due to her vegetarian lifestyle, CNN reports.
According to the website, Jett's no-meat ways and involvement in the People for the Ethic Treatment of Animals group -- which "condemns factory farms and ranches" -- was enough for ranchers to protest her appearance on the float. Jett is also an outspoken PETA activist and has even recorded vegetarian testimonial PSAs for the group.
"I've decided to switch from South Dakota to another float because people's political agendas were getting in the way of what should be a purely entertainment driven event," Jett said in a statement Saturday. "I will remain focused on entertaining the millions of people watching, who will be celebrating a great American tradition."
Instead of representing the state that is "so heavily reliant on agriculture and livestock production," according to Jodie Anderson of the South Dakota Cattlemen's Association, Jett will be moved to a different float.

 

[Thistles]

Uh, the moving around I was referring to had me on both sides of the Atlantic. My history education in Austria was mostly the World Wars and the accompanying self-flagellation. I do completely agree that the quality of schooling overall in Europe was better than what I got in the US.

 

[The Snark]

Uh, the moving around I was referring to had me on both sides of the Atlantic. My history education in Austria was mostly the World Wars and the accompanying self-flagellation. I do completely agree that the quality of schooling overall in Europe was better than what I got in the US.

(But please don't tell Americans that. They will start getting all rabidy and foamy about their wonderfulness)

 

[ShredderEmp]

Still reading. I can't deny the truth but why are you saying such ___________ things. You don't have to act as that we are special and need to be comforted and babied. We already established the fact that the education system in America is lacking in contrast to other countries, but you don't need to act like a _____________.

 

[viper69]

That's just a little disconcerting when one takes into account the average Americans news source is Fox and they are supposed to be making informed sensible decisions in regards to the environment, animal and human rights, and what flavor of cheese the moon is made of.

The "average" American, now that's the biggest blanket statement I've read hahaha..Fox Noise does not resonate with all the "average" Americans! On top of that, if one is even to suggest that, one must should be specific about the region they are speaking about. The different regions of the USA are in fact somewhat different politically. Shame on you Snark hahah

re: education, yes the USA's primary system is definitely below most of the industrialized nations, HOWEVER, there's a reason why for many decades TONS and TONS of foreigners come to the USA to be educated in the USA, and it's not because the USA has great food either.

 

[The Snark]

Oh hey! A repartee to my over the top irony laced rhetoric. So much for checking to see if anyone is reading my tripe. Hang in there whilst I randomly dial the mercurial and ready a broadside of some sort.

 

[The Snark]

The "average" American, now that's the biggest blanket statement I've read hahaha..Fox Noise does not resonate with all the "average" Americans! On top of that, if one is even to suggest that, one must should be specific about the region they are speaking about. The different regions of the USA are in fact somewhat different politically. Shame on you Snark hahah

(I've dumped the foreigners come to America to be educated. That's too nebulous.)
College tosses this one in every students face several dozen times in the first couple of years. When is a generalized (blanket) statement not a blanket statement? Do I really need to go into scientific methodology here? But let's take this one down. The best statistic, what seemed the most accurate though leaning conservatively, established 46% of Americans had Fox as their sole or primary news source. To be honest, I haven't kept up with them so feel free to research and change that as you please. Okay, we've performed the basic distillation process of converting a blanket statement, a supposition, into an established fact. Close to half of all Americans are Fox-ites. Now, the internet has given us an incredible tool. The search engine. By no means perfectly accurate, but able to deliver data ready to be extrapolated so that a working hypothesis can be reached in minutes instead of weeks, months or years. So start you pass analysis. Shove into Google all the permutations you can think of Americans+uneducated. You are going to move that 46% towards 50%. Now add the permutations of does not read news. Keep on running your searches, distilling out the probables. Try to run at least 500 searches. What you are looking for of course is the number of hits. Individually they are invalid. You are going to have to discard and research over and over. Personally, I cheat. I've got a daemon program where I give it the basics and permutations and it runs the searches and returns averaged data. You can write your own using php without any real difficulty. I like my search analysis returns to take at least 1,000,000 samplings.

As example, the search "Fox New"+bias (Always force your searches to reduce the extraneous. Then run CNN+bias, NBC, CBS and so on. Then throw away 95% as crap and your results are going to reflect a reasonably close analysis. You can keep on refining as you want. The only rule of this is all common factors are represented so you aren't introducing your own bias.

Then the other aspect of generality conversions into factual data. Blanket: all streams and rivers wander and meander. The distillation process here is very simple. Just use the known scientific fields. Hydrology->Sedimentology-> Fact:all streams and rivers wander and meander if there is sediment and sufficient force present.

Then an interesting study I read a while ago. The average 2nd year native German college student has a better grasp of the English language, grammar, spelling and punctuation, than the average American only educated to high school level.



Anyways, go ahead and do a few hundred pass analysiseses via search engines on PETA and HSUS in all permutations you can think of. With such a divisive topic I'd set the bar at at least 100,000,000 returns. See what you come up with. You may draw a complete blank. But even then you would be miles ahead of anyone who has reached a conclusion about them from, say, less than 50 media info blarbes.

 

[Najakeeper]

The problem is not just Fox or people, who get their information from Fox. The problem is that US became so goddamn right shifted in the last two decades, even the so called "non-biased centrist media" spews inaccurate BS on a regular basis. Due to this TV based uneducation, it is seen quite normal to make decisions, which has worldwide implications, based on a book that was written thousands of years ago by a bunch of uneducated peasants. Science is only there to make money and unless it helps to make money, it is disregarded utterly.

On top of this, repealing Glass-Steagall act destroyed your economics (with the world economy in tow) , Citizens United killed the idea of an independent politician and Homeland Security Act destroyed your freedom. As a person, who has spend about 1/3rd of his life in the Pacific Northwest, I am sad to see USA in this shape.