PETA is an organization that above all things loves to capture media attention. They often do this at the cost of alienating nearly everyone, even those who might share similar opinions on animal rights. If they’re not comparing the Jewish Holocaust to poultry farms, or using the murder of an abortion doctor to promote their specific brand of foolishness, they can be found financially supporting domestic terrorist groups like the Animal Liberation Front.
But that’s old news. The PETA Blog, tastefully titled the PETA files, recently posted a comment about Obama swatting a fly (PETA blog here, actual video of Obama and fly here). The author of the post, Alisa Mullins, wrote the following:
Believe it or not, we've actually been contacted by multiple media outlets wanting to know PETA's official response to the executive insect execution.
Hmmm, okay I chose not, but that’s beside the point. Mullins then goes on to recommend the PETA brand Katcha Bug™ Humane Bug Catcher as the proper alternative to swatting flies, er excuse me insect execution. Seriously, a humane bug catcher?
The first known flying insects appears in the fossil record approximately 300 million years ago. Other evidence suggests that they had inhabited the Earth even earlier than that. In all likelihood insects will be here long after the human race has disappeared.
What PETA is demonstrating is a complete lack of understanding of nature. They have mistakenly placed human beings at the top of some imaginary hierarchical system where we must act as protectors for all forms of life. I do believe it important to look out for animals in danger of extinction, but grouping all non-human animals into a single category characterized by defenceless is wrong. In doing so PETA actually devalues the lives of insects.
Insects are not defenceless. We need to recognize that some animals are our enemies, and this includes many species from the insect world. Mosquitoes carry malaria and yellow fever, ticks carry Lyme disease. There are countless other fleas, bugs and lice which sole purpose in life is to parasitically infect and execute human beings. Malaria annually kills more Africans than AIDS.
Sometimes nature is mean. Sometimes animals aren’t our friends. Sometimes we must work to act against those forces in nature which seek to destroy us. Obama’s fly swatting hardly counts as a strike against Dengue Fever. Given the voluminous nature of the common house fly it doesn’t count for anything.
7 comments:
Peta are batshit-crazy, but I'd hardly call the ALF a domestic terrorist organization.
I kill every bug I possibly can. That's my pleasure. I especially enjoy stomping on the big ones.
The ALF has a long documentary history of arson and other acts vandalism going back to 1973. They've set numerous research labs on fire with the intention of instilling terror into animal researchers. Is there a better word to describe it?
And don't forget that humans have caused the extinction of such a wonderful species - smallpox. We should be nice to such creatures and let them live normal lives!
Yeah, crazy doesn't even begin to describe PETA.
I meant to say documented, not documentary.
I don't classify the destruction of property as an act terrorism, the ALF has never killed anyone. What I know as the definition of terrorism is: an attack on a civilian target resulting in deaths which seeks to place pressure on government to secure political ends.
It's my opinion animal testing is unnecessary and just plain ol' bad science for the most part. I will concede that some medical advances have been made possible through animal testing. But I also think it is unconscionable that animals are tortured to test cosmetics, harmful chemicals, military technology and for other arguably worthless pursuits.
I feel that animals deserve the right to live and die freely, not at the hand of man, only after being subjected to torture. I support animal liberation, and many of the ALF's tactics.
I do think arson is reckless and is the sign of poor planning and lack of insight on the part of those involved in the action. But when it comes down to it i do support liberating animals from those that harm and abuse them. Be it corporate vivisectors, asshole dog fighters or negligent pet owners.
You are correct, the ALF has not killed anyone. But is it unreasonable to suggest that a group that willing commits arson and vandalism of scientific equipment might not be that far away? Technically you probably have a better definition of terrorism than I do, so I’m willing to withdraw my charge, at least until there’s a body count.
The animal rights movement suffers from groups like PETA and ALF. They make those who care about animals look like whackos. It then makes it easier for the general public to dismiss valid animal welfare concerns as nothing more than the ramblings of mad men. There are much better tactics I propose, among them Pete Singer. Singer is the best weapon the animal rights movement has; he’s convincing, highly intelligent and extremely thoughtful and well spoken. But he’s continually drowned out by toxic lunacy of PETA and similar organizations.
I think we can both agree that animals shouldn’t be subjected to unnecessary pain and suffering. We most surely also agree that nature is not a structured hierarchy with mankind at the top. On the subject of animal testing, I agree with you completely that animals shouldn’t be used in testing of cosmetics and other such foolishness. However they still do play a really important role in science which I think you dismiss too quickly and quite unfairly.
For example, it has been discovered that HIV evolved from a similar virus found in non-human primates called Simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV). Some research in this field is currently looking at the way HIV glycoproteins attach to other cells. After the HIV attaches to host cells it then injects its own DNA inside. The DNA replicates and eventually controls the cell, using it as a factory to create more viruses. It’s now thought by some researchers working in this field that the way we might be able to defeat HIV is by destroying its glycoproteins. Now some of the research that needs to be done in order to advance scientific understanding is done with SIV, that means non-human primates have be used. That also means they will die. I think it sucks that monkeys have to die, but when I weigh the potential gain, that being a cure for AIDS, I have to side with the researchers. I wouldn’t call that “Bad Science”.
At this point I think this is where the argument now stands: you’re making the charge the majority (i.e. “for most part”) of animal testing done today is bad science. Is there a particular example you could use to demonstrate what you mean by this charge? Do you have any evidence suggesting these types of “bad science” constitutes a majority of the scientific research currently being done on animals?
Post a Comment