Is this thread about PETA's hypocrisy or meat eating? The thread title suggests one, the thread itself seems to have digressed to the other.

I think we need a split.

CdesignProponentsist wrote:Is this thread about PETA's hypocrisy or meat eating? The thread title suggests one, the thread itself seems to have digressed to the other.

I think we need a split.

No, it is relevant. I am impugning the credibility of all here claiming that PETA is hypocritical. It is like someone who is religious attempting to critique secular ethical systems. Until they drop their religious baggage, their critiques are almost certainly bound to be off the mark, because they are so delusional that they cannot have a reasoned discussion on the nature of an ethical system that presupposes their beliefs to be false. They may be incisive, but that is most unlikely.

Likewise in this discussion, people are attempting to critique PETA when they have demonstrably illogical views regarding the cost benefit analyses of animal consumption. They believe that the preferences of their taste buds override a lifetime of suffering for animals, the greatest contributor to climate change in the world, the greatest cause of rain forest deforestation, and so on. This is so backwards, that they are desperately attempting to achieve any type of moral high ground on any type of issue. Even if they were right, that PETA actually doesn't give a shit about animals and kills them because they are lazy, that is so unimportant next to their own behavior of mass animal slaughter.

But they aren't right, anyway. Until they understand consequentialist ethical theory, the nervous systems and psychology of animals, the conditions animals are kept in, the other adverse effects of animal husbandry, etc., they will never comprehend how radicalism is called for in debates of animal welfare. And they choose not to educate themselves, either because they want to remain willfully ignorant out of fear that they will feel bad about their behavior, or because they are lazy, the same accusation they lodge at PETA.

CdesignProponentsist wrote:Is this thread about PETA's hypocrisy or meat eating? The thread title suggests one, the thread itself seems to have digressed to the other.

I think we need a split.

We don't need a split, we have a meat eating thread. Probably more than one.

We are talking about PETA as not being as advertised.

However some people would feel more comfortable shifting goal posts, I wonder why?

UtilityMonster wrote:
No, it is relevant. I am impugning the credibility of all here claiming that PETA is hypocritical.

Of all here? Even those who are vegan?

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... tml#p24960

HughMcB wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:Is this thread about PETA's hypocrisy or meat eating? The thread title suggests one, the thread itself seems to have digressed to the other.

I think we need a split.

We don't need a split, we have a meat eating thread. Probably more than one.

We are talking about PETA as not being as advertised.

However some people would feel more comfortable shifting goal posts, I wonder why?

This entire thread is a shift in the goalposts. You are attempting to equate PETA being a bad organization with meat consumption being morally acceptable, whether you acknowledge it or not.

Animavore wrote:

UtilityMonster wrote:
No, it is relevant. I am impugning the credibility of all here claiming that PETA is hypocritical.

Of all here? Even those who are vegan?

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... tml#p24960

Didn't see his post. No, I think jmills was already more qualified in his criticism of PETA. I know there are a number of vegetarians/vegans who criticize certain things PETA does, but I think they are much more willing to have rational arguments about possibly unsavory actions PETA takes on behalf of animals. I would never think a vegan is criticizing PETA merely because they are ashamed that PETA so stridently criticizes their behavior. @j.mills , were he reading this thread, would probably find http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ingrid-ne ... 36311.html persuasive and not say it was bullshit, well, because it came from PETA, which he knows is bullshit!

UtilityMonster wrote: @j.mills , were he reading this thread, would probably find http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ingrid-ne ... 36311.html persuasive and not say it was bullshit, well, because it came from PETA, which he knows is bullshit!

Or he might say what a seemingly emotionally-driven, manipulative, select article which only highlights PETA's dishonesty. I mean, it's not as if any other shelter wouldn't of put down those same animals displayed in the photographs. How many animals arrive in such serious conditions? I mean, really?

I don't eat dogs and cats.

Does that allow me to point out that dogs and cats released to PETA to be "Rescued" are being fast tracked to being euthanized by that same organization, or does eating any kind of meat disqualify me from having an opinion?

UtilityMonster wrote:This entire thread is a shift in the goalposts. You are attempting to equate PETA being a bad organization with meat consumption being morally acceptable, whether you acknowledge it or not.

No one has equated PETA's activities with meat eating except you!

FFS stop talking out your arse and stick to the issue at hand. PETA's activities.

CdesignProponentsist wrote:I don't eat dogs and cats.

Does that allow me to point out that dogs and cats released to PETA to be "Rescued" are being fast tracked to being euthanized by that same organization, or does eating any kind of meat disqualify me from having an opinion?

YOU EAT TEH MEATZ!!!1!

I'm going to ignore you!

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is an organization that publicly claims to represent the best interest of animals -- indeed their "ethical treatment." Yet approximately 2,000 animals pass through PETA's front door every year and very few make it out alive. The vast majority -- 96 percent in 2011 -- exit the facility out the back door after they have been killed, when Pet Cremation Services of Tidewater stops by on their regular visits to pick up their remains. Between these visits, the bodies are stored in the giant walk-in freezer PETA installed for this very purpose. It is a freezer that cost $9,370 and, like the company which incinerates the bodies of PETA's victims, was paid for with the donations of animal lovers who could never have imagined that the money they donated to help animals would be used to end their lives instead. In fact, in the last 11 years, PETA has killed 29,426 dogs, cats, rabbits, and other domestic animals.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-j-winograd/peta-kills-puppies-kittens_b_2979220.html

This has been going on for decades. It's very well known. There have been hundreds or thousands of legal documents.

There has been enough argument. This is far beyond a few freak chapters or individuals.