peta Options

[HaruHaruko]

there might be a topic about this already. i searched it. but, nothing came up.

anyway, i was watching an e! special about murders. then the show "pam. girl on the loose." came on and she never seems to shut the f**k up about peta. if you like peta, whatever. but, don't prance around with your dog on a leash while wearing a peta shirt.

i can see why peta wants to help animals. but, i really hate ingrid newkirk and mary beth sweetland. they're pretty much hypocritical neo-nazi's.

discuss.

[coconutter]

You don't hear anything about it because no one talks about it as much. But look at any of the newer shampoos and cosmetics and somewhere I'm sure you will find something about it being tested. I've seen it on my shampoo bottles.

Survival of the fittest doesn't mean that a life is valued over another. It just means that sometimes in certain situations one may die because one is stronger. It doesn't mean that they kill each other for advances in science whatever it may be for; and quite honestly I haven't heard anything about advances in science having to do with any other animal except a rat. I know this because I have a friend who is a biochemist and he talks about testing on rats. I do know however, that it's almost impossible to test cosmetics on rats because they would die too easily and they don't have much hair. They have to test SOME type of animal if the bottle says they have, and I'm assuming from the past publicity that these animals are dogs and cats. I may be wrong, but it's not a completely off-the-wall accusation.

I'm still standing by my statement that no life form is superior to another, even if they are more intelligent. They all have in common the most powerful thing that surpasses intelligence and strength and that is life.

[NoSex]

I'm still standing by my statement that no life form is superior to another, even if they are more intelligent. They all have in common the most powerful thing that surpasses intelligence and strength and that is life.

But, we are all different, correct? I mean, we certainly aren't equal, even if you could argue that we're all "equally alive." Even if, you couldn't further say that we are "ultimately equal." To demonstrate this simply, you might allow a tax specialist to file your taxes but you most likely would not allow a retard to do the same task - they're not equal. You constantly make distinctions within your life and act on those distinctions as well. So, although superiority is largely a subjective concept, there are certainly distinctions between life forms, hell... there are even distinctions between specific lives within a single form. So, why is it so inconceivable to you that mankind, as a whole, is more cognitively advanced, more sensitive to suffering and pain, generally more valued, and more dominant in the world? Wouldn't this make us, in a sense, "superior" - at least to non-human animals?