![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
animal cruelty
Those of you involved with PETA out to take a look at this.
Now, it's important to note that this story is being given legs by a website run by the Center for Consumer Freedom, an industry group that specializes in attacking and painting environmental, animal rights and public health groups as extremists and even terrorists.
Here's some highlights from the CCF's "About Us" page:
"The Center for Consumer Freedom is supported by restaurants, food companies and more than 1,000 concerned individuals."
"Many of the companies and individuals who support the Center financially have indicated that they want anonymity as contributors. They are reasonably apprehensive about privacy and safety in light of the violence some activist groups have adopted as a 'game plan' to impose their views."
Now, the status of the CCF alone makes any claims they make pretty suspect (check out their Obesity Debate page for some classic pro-industry propaganda. It's full of stories that refute claims that very few health groups or physicians organizations are making, while managing to not actually address the obesity problem at all. It's a fascinating excersize in propagandizing).
However, the copies of the filings (linked here) from the Norfolk, VA office of PETA on the percentage of animals killed over animals adopted out (86% killed) are pretty shocking, especially considering that the Norfolk SPCA manages to find homes for 73% of its animals.
Now, there's nothing that can be done about the CCF, unless the CEO of McDonald's has friended me without me noticing, in which case I encourage him to keep those shitheels on a shorter leash. But those of you who count yourselves as members of PETA should be making a fucking phone call and demanding that they keep every single one of those animals alive that is capable of living reasonably well (I've no illusions that, say, rescued fighting cocks can be expected to be rehabilitated). There's no room for hypocrisy in an organization like PETA.
Links ripped from the journals/comments of![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
madeofmeat, theturducken.
Check out my new icon! Look into his eye!
UPDATED: All of these links are worksafe, but one or two of them might have pictures of meat or dead animals.
Now, it's important to note that this story is being given legs by a website run by the Center for Consumer Freedom, an industry group that specializes in attacking and painting environmental, animal rights and public health groups as extremists and even terrorists.
Here's some highlights from the CCF's "About Us" page:
"The Center for Consumer Freedom is supported by restaurants, food companies and more than 1,000 concerned individuals."
"Many of the companies and individuals who support the Center financially have indicated that they want anonymity as contributors. They are reasonably apprehensive about privacy and safety in light of the violence some activist groups have adopted as a 'game plan' to impose their views."
Now, the status of the CCF alone makes any claims they make pretty suspect (check out their Obesity Debate page for some classic pro-industry propaganda. It's full of stories that refute claims that very few health groups or physicians organizations are making, while managing to not actually address the obesity problem at all. It's a fascinating excersize in propagandizing).
However, the copies of the filings (linked here) from the Norfolk, VA office of PETA on the percentage of animals killed over animals adopted out (86% killed) are pretty shocking, especially considering that the Norfolk SPCA manages to find homes for 73% of its animals.
Now, there's nothing that can be done about the CCF, unless the CEO of McDonald's has friended me without me noticing, in which case I encourage him to keep those shitheels on a shorter leash. But those of you who count yourselves as members of PETA should be making a fucking phone call and demanding that they keep every single one of those animals alive that is capable of living reasonably well (I've no illusions that, say, rescued fighting cocks can be expected to be rehabilitated). There's no room for hypocrisy in an organization like PETA.
Links ripped from the journals/comments of
madeofmeat, theturducken.Check out my new icon! Look into his eye!
UPDATED: All of these links are worksafe, but one or two of them might have pictures of meat or dead animals.
no subject
no subject
Nazi..!
no subject
Anyone who has pets and gives money to PETA should really think about these things.
no subject
"I don't use the word 'pet.' I think it's speciesist language. I prefer 'companion animal.' For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance."
- The Harper's Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223
So, in addition to proving that Newkirk is a crazy, pedantic douchebag, it also indicates that they would be against releasing into the wild animals that could or would not survive. So while, for instance, some breeds of ferrets are "wild" animals and could be released, others that have been specialized and bred as pets would no long be bred, and would be kept under the protection of humans until their numbers declined and disappeared.
I don't agree with her fundamental objection to owning pets, and her definition of "enjoyment at a distance" as a "symbiotic relationship" is idiotic, especially since dogs and housecats are so far removed by breeding from their wild roots that their relationship with humans as-is is already a healthy symbiosis. But I would have to say that if there are PETA members releasing dogs and cats into the Amazon or Rhesus monkeys into the high Rockies, those members are misunderstanding their own philosophy.
Which is not to say PETA's leaders don't turn a blind eye to such idiocy - they clearly do. But again, it's not official policy, and internal pressure from its membership should be able to eliminate such things, which is why I posted in the first place.
no subject
You may also want to look at Activist Cash. It is also run by the Center for Consumer Freedom, but has information that is probably more checkable, like quotes from various leaders of some of the movements it criticizes.
For example:
"Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it."
— PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk, in the September 1989 issue of Vogue
Pretty strong words for a group with a spokes person like Pamela Anderson who would most likely have died of Hep C related complications by now if not for drugs developed through animal testing.
There were a few examples from the Bullshit show as well. One including one of the more prominent members of PETA who has diabetes and requires insulin to have a somewhat normal life (if any life at all possibly). Also they questioned PETAs killing of animals that they take in long before the story you quoted cam to light.
Arrangements can be made for a viewing of the episode if you feel so inclined.
-PT
no subject
no subject
And I don't doubt that tests on animals only give part of the story for medical treatments. Unfortunately one can not know the full potential dangers of a drug or medical procedure on humans until it is actually used on humans. But using animals as a gateway before subjecting humans to the drugs/procedures can cut down monumentally on human causalities during the development of those treatments.
I currently come down firmly on the side of animal testing has done significantly more good then harm. If you happen to have sources that argue the other side well, especially web links so I can read them at work, I would be interested in perusing them.
-PT
no subject
Not to mention the vast numbers of surgical techniques and medications perfected on animals and human volunteers that do not exclusive benefit human patients.
no subject
Yeah, I don't know if I buy that part of it. They've given money for the defense of folks who've destroyed buildings, and to organizations that are certified as domestic terrorists by the FBI, but according to Wikipedia, neither ELF nor ALF (the organizations in question) have been implicated in any deaths. Economic sabotage is hardly terrorism, in my opinion, especially considering that many of their alleged terrorist actions are committed in retaliation for actions already taken.
I personally don't condone property destruction as an effective means of protest, but the fact of the matter is that the industries against which ALF/ELF commit most of their actions have killed a lot of people (sometimes maliciously), and threaten to eventually do us all in. So I have trouble feeling bad when a Hummer dealership gets lit on fire.
Calling PETA, et al, terrorists is just the 21st century equivalent of calling someone a fag. It's a generic insult that's supposed to get everyone hackles up.
Yeah, well, sheep are stupid.
no subject
---more quotes---
from here
“Monkey-wrenching is more than just sabotage, and you're g*ddamn right, it's revolutionary! This is jihad, pal.”
— Earth First! co-founder Mike Roselle, in the Earth First! Journal (December 1994/January 1995
“They are outlaws; they are terrorists; and they have no right being considered environmentalists.”
— National Wildlife Federation president Jay Hair, describing Earth First! in The Nation (May 2, 1987)<-- 1987! way before calling people you don't like terrorists was the hip thing to do. :)
“All the federal agents in the United States will not stop more actions of this sort.”
— Convicted arsonist Rodney Coronado on property destruction in the 20th anniversary issue of the Earth First! Journal.
“In some cases burning a target is the most effective way of decommissioning it.”
— Earth First! founder Dave Foreman, in his 1985 book, Ecodefense
I quote The Earth First stuff above because PETA found it to be beneficial to give them grants while convicted arsonist Rodney Coronado was editor of their journal.
And some from here
Damaging the enemy financially is fair game.
- PETA co-founder Alex Pacheco, Washington City Paper (December 18, 1987)
We're at war, and we'll do what we need to win.
- PETA Director of Media Relations Dan Matthews, USA Today (September 3, 1991)
Do not be afraid to condone arsons at places of animal torture.
- Humane Education Lecturer Gary Yourofsky, The Toledo Blade (June 24, 2001)
I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals out or burn them down.
- PETA President Ingrid Newkirk, "National Animal Rights Convention" (June 27, 1997)
Perhaps the mere idea of receiving a nasty missive will allow animal researchers to empathize with their victims for the first time in their lousy careers. I find it small wonder that the laboratories aren't all burning to the ground. If I had more guts, I'd light a match.
- PETA President Ingrid Newkirk, The Chronicle of Higher Education (November 12, 1999)
Our nonviolent tactics are not as effective. We ask nicely for years and get nothing. Someone makes a threat, and it works.
- PETA President Ingrid Newkirk, US News & World Report (April 8, 2002)
Would I rather the research lab that tests animals is reduced to a bunch of cinders? Yes.
- PETA President Ingrid Newkirk, New York Daily News (December 7, 1997)
I will be the last person to condemn ALF [the Animal Liberation Front].
- PETA President Ingrid Newkirk, The New York Daily News (December 7, 1997)
Or just go here and in the 'select an individual' drop down box select Rodney Coronado see how much he sucks as a human being.
These people are just as bad as any religious or political extremist. They only have one view, theirs, there is no compromise, you do it there way or the will threaten you, destroy your property, and I'm sure given the chance some of them would kill you. Seems like a terrorist group to me.
also check out Activist Cash's info on SHAC an animal rights group organized by the above mentioned Rodney Coronado.
-PT
no subject
Firefighters tend not to enter empty buildings, which is all ELF/ALF torch. They're rarely in significant danger in cases like this.
Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now to research it thoroughly, but a quick web-search reveals that there's only been one serious injury as a result of tree-spiking, and there's never been any evidence that Earth First or ELF had anything to do with it.
Anyway, like I said, I don't condone the practice, but it still doesn't seem an entirely unreasonable act of violence to attack the physical plant of an economic entity when that entity is already engaged in attacks on you (via environmental destruction, social injustice, etc.).
Ingird Newkirk is a douchebag.
no subject
Not knowing any firefighters I can not comment on standard fire fighting procedures. I had always given the impression though that any time they are required to answer an alarm (even if it turns out to be false) there is some risk (more then average) involved.
I'm happy to condemn the practice. If these people think that they are being 'attacked' by the operation of these companies then there are perfectly legal channels for them to bring their grievances to light and extract compensation for the wrongs they believe have befallen them. I'm unsure a discussion on what counts as environmental destruction or social injustice is in order as I'm not sure we could come to a consensus on a definition of either[1]. It seems too often that those involved in the environmental movement argue too much from emotion. I might be persuaded to take their side on some issues if presented with empirical evidence for their claims, but at no time will I condone the destruction of someone else's property.
-PT
[1] I'm sure we could find plenty of examples where we agree something is or is not environmental destruction' or 'social injustice' but eventually we'd get to a point where my line is one place and yours is somewhere more to the left. :)
no subject
Very true, and an excellent point. They may not go running into those blazing Hummer dealerships, but just getting into a fire truck is pretty dangerous. The Fire Dept. has, of necessity, a pretty low response time, which involves some danger, since driving what is essentially a tractor trailer full of water through city streets at high speeds is pretty damn risky.
Also, those poles they slide down can be very slippery.
I think you and I both know that legal channels for holding corporations responsible for the environmental crimes they commit are not only an incredibly expensive option, but also one loaded with political implications that virtually garuntee a victory for the entity with the most money. One must control the media and court of public opinion before one can succesfully wage a court battle against an organization like, say, Union Carbide.
I'm no saying that fire-bombing a chemical plant is a viable option, but would you honestly expect the courts to rul in your favor on a lawsuit brought by you against a mutlinational corporation with billions of dollars in assets, even if you could prove they were doing indirect violence to you?
Can you provide examples of the claims for which you've seen no empirical evidence that you feel are argued too much from emotion? There's a pretty strong scientific consensus on most of the big environmental issues - i.e. global warming, GM crops, BGH/agricultural chemicals presenting human health dangers.
Probably right. :)
Neither would I, but you and I probably have different definitions of what "property" is too. In any case, I don't think I was condoning lightning shit on fire, just disputing the use of the term terrorist. It's a troublesome word I don't think is entirely appropriate in this case.
no subject
I'll be looking though here, here, and just about anything in this Google search. I may or may not find something worth commenting on.
But I will comment on that if a small group of people writing letters to the FCC can make life hell for various entertainment outlets and entertainers then I am sure a similarly concerned group of people writing to the FDA, EPA, USDA, and possibly several other government regulatory agencies could have similar impact.
Justice is, unfortunately, a slow process. Even at the snails pace it sometime seems to move we, as a species, still do not always get it right. I think it is better that way and why vigilantism has too much risk of falling flat on it's face when someone acts out against a perceived wrong when they do not have all the information pertaining to that situation.
re: scientific consensus and arguing from emotion
I don't agree with the idea that there is that much consensus on any of those issues. It can appear as if there is since one side of the discussion almost always seems louder then the other.
If there were consensus on GW, for example, then articles like this probably would not appear. It is my understanding that the disagreement for the validity of satellite data has been up in the air (no pun intended) for some time now. If the information brought forth by the scientists in this article are shown to be correct then this will slide general opinion towards the case that yes, the global temperature is getting warmer. If it also means all that satellite data is useless now, or if it can be salvaged if they can compensate for the reading errors some how I do not know. But basically, there is no real consensus on GW, just currently the data supports that the globe seems to be getting warmer. This position can be accepted by people as the most likely event, or it is always possible that those who think otherwise will come up with data supporting their idea, or show that data used to support the warming trend is incorrect. I hope I do not sound like I am coming down on either side of the debate as I did not intend to do that. I am willing to say that current data shows a warming trend, now if there is adequate data to show that the trend will continue so that all the dire predictions for the world 50 years form now (50 YEARS!!!) have a chance to come true, or if the warming trend is occurring naturally or influenced by humankind is an entirely different issue.
As for consensus on GM crops or BGH/agricultural chemicals on what side does this consensus fall as a lot of people (scientist and non) seem to still be arguing both sides of the issue.
Most environmental arguments I hear fall into one of the fallacies listed here I believe that appeals to Pity, Consequences, and Popularity count as emotion based appeals rather then empirical ones.
This is starting to run the risk of being derailed into several different topics we probably see from some what different perspectives. So just to keep it on the mark of terrorism and if these people qualify I'll refer to this FBI .pdf file and a quote from the Code of Federal Regulations.
Terrorism: "...the unlawful use of force and violence against
persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or
any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." (28 C.F.R.
Section 0.85)
The .pdf itself is from 1999, just because the events of 9/11/2001 up the bar for the levels of destruction and fear a terrorist act can achieve it does not make smaller acts that only destroy property any less terrorist acts.
-PT
no subject
You're right, and, in the end, I agree. I'm just saying I understand the frustration. The justice system is often flawed, but it beats lighting shit on fire, even if it doesn't look as cool.
Regarding global warming, the article you posted is a pretty heavily biased interpretation of new data analysis techniques that reconcile the discrepancies between surface thermometer readings and tropospheric satellite readings. The new results do, in fact, show a warming trend, but that warming trend happens to be smaller than some previous analysis have estimated.
Here's an MSNBC (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8917093/) article that quotes some of the same people as the T&F link you posted. And since I know you likes your science, here's some of that. (http://www.techcentralstation.com/120304F.html)
Also, here's an article from the Union of Concerned Scientists (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=962) that is of interest more for its distinction between consensus on data and certainty of conclusions than for its discussion of global warming itself.
My understanding of the GM crops issue is that it is widely recognized as being impossible to prevent migration of many such crops out of test fields, which is also true in different ways about many agricultural chemicals and their migration into ground water and drinking water supplies, as well as their effects on plant and animal life as they break down. I'm not up on the science of it all though.
There's not as much consensus on the long-term effects of all of these things on humans, true, but that they do happen and that there are risks is pretty certain. It seems to me that since there is a possibility of dire consequences, the more intelligent course of action would be to cease using such products until the risks can be fully ascertained.
It seems to me that we go about these things backward - putting GM crops, for instance, out into the world before we know without a doubt that they will do no harm, and then defending that decision by saying we're not certain they don't do harm. That's idiotic.
Technically, the above falls under the "Appeal to Consequences" fallacy you posted, but it seems logical to me. These issues are all about the potential consequences, and the fact that thse consequences have not been adequately determined.
So the only difference between terrorism and any other form of political violence is that it's illegal. That's just silly. Legality is hardly a proper metric by which to judge the moral rectitude of an action.
no subject
Biased in what way? The article basically says "There was an error in the data and it look like surface, balloon, and satellite data all suggest a warming trend now, where as previous they did not agree"
Another interesting read, though I'm not sure if the data is out of dat, I think it's 3 years old. Concerning human influence on the current warming trend can be found here.
Most GW articles only talk about man made emissions of green house gases, this is one of the first I have seen that tries to take natural sources of greenhouse gasses into account.
I'm not sure where else to go w/ GW, I agree that the current evidence points to a warming trend, I still question how much of a contribution mankind is making to that.
-PT
no subject
There are procedures that govern the use of government sanctioned violence. Like requiring to follow the Geneva Convention.
Modern warfare tries it's damnedest to limit it's actions to legitimate combatants and targets that are part of the enemies war making capability. Ideally it is also the last resort when all other methods of solving problems between nations has failed[1]. It also, in the west, has to be authorized by a governing body. If a western nation has decided to declare war on you you're damn well aware of it long before the bombs start dropping.
Terrorism doesn't care who it hurts. They purposely engage in scare tactics in an attempt to get people to agree with their world view, and very few of them seem open to compromise. They strike with out warning, declaration, or willingness to ad hear to currently accepted rules of war.
I see a very big difference between the two.
-PT
[1] While the current military action in Iraq is a good example of not waiting to use sanctioned government violence as a last resort that is yet another can of worms to possibly open. Though, oddly enough we may agree in a lot of places on that particular subject.
no subject
Maybe it's me but I find it difficult to find any 'neutral' information on GM crops. Most is either positive stuff put out by the companies that produce them, or negative put out by groups who seem very knee-jerk and would be happy to see millions of people die of starvation because they some how think older pre-industrial times were much better to live in then our modern world.
But as for preventing migration of GM crops:
This is one of those weird issues, the anti-GM people argue it from two, seeming contrary, sides.
1) GM crops will mingle with other crops/plants outside the fields they are grown causing new herbicide resistant weeds that will over grow native plants and ruin everything and/or native plants will pick up the pest resistance qualities of the GM plants and kill a lot of insects or other animals further up the foods chain.
2) The evil GM crop companies purposely make GM crops sterile so that the poor poor farmers have to by new seeds from them every season. The farmer can no longer save seed harvest to harvest.
It is my understanding that #2 is somewhat closer to the truth as GM crops tend to be created sterile so that they have no ability to breed with other plats causing possible 'super weeds'
At least in the US GM foods are highly regulated, more so the 'organic' food products. If the FDA, USDA, or EPA has the slightest suspicion that a GM product may be bad for people it will not allow it to be used in food destined for human consumption. I am certain that if it was felt that a GM crop was going to be bad in general then one of those agencies would not allow it to be produced at all. .pdf worth a read.
I am of the opinion that humanity has been genetically altering it's food source for several millennia, the science of bioengineering just allows us to do so quicker and more efficiently then previous. The most effective example of humanities effects on the genetic make up of it's food supply, to me, is corn.
-PT
no subject
no subject
no subject
How's this:
"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation."
- Harper's (August 1, 1988)
or this:
"One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV."
- The Chicago Daily Herald (March 1, 1990)
or this:
"In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether."
- Newsday (February 21, 1988)
And lastly this:
"I don't use the word 'pet.' I think it's speciesist language. I prefer 'companion animal.' For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance."
- The Harper's Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223
All said by Ingrid Newkirk - President — People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
(source)
-PT
no subject
I didn't post to make anyone feel bad about belonging to PETA. My point is that, as a member, it is YOUR organization. If you give money to them, they are answerable to you, and you should therefore be making some noise about the cruelty they do inflict on animals. If you don't want to worry about the hypocritical acts of an organization to which you belong, there are countless animal rights organizations that aren't themselves cruel to animals (or humans).
If, however, you give them money and do not object or question when you hear about stuff like this, then you are just as responsible for the deaths and cruelty they inflict as those actually inflicting it.