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?

[coconutter]

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?

Yes, we're all different, but I'm saying all life forms are equal and one cannot become more superior. Intelligence and strength cannot distinguish between superiority. Although intellectually disabled people (please do not call them retards) and regularly functioning human beings are not equal in intelligence they both have the opportunity to be either more or less intelligent. Animals also have this chance, the same as humans do. Perhaps we just haven't discovered an animal on par with regularly functioning human beings, but it is evident that they have the chance, just as we do. The evidence being: discovering animals that are smarter than others, or more specifically discovering more highly functioning gorillas with the same IQ as a low-functioning intellectually disabled person. However, some gorillas are not as high functioning as others.

The only thing that makes us humans different from unintelligent animals is that we seized the opportunity to further our intelligence level. Therefore we believe ourselves superior because of the simple fact we had the opportunity to become more intelligent and our ancestors ran with it.

more sensitive to suffering and pain, generally more valued

How do you know animals aren't sensitive to suffering and pain? They haven't yet given us the opportunity to communicate with humans.

Also, how can you say humans are more valued when you are a human yourself? That would be like someone saying they are better than someone else and that is obvious they would think more highly of themselves than they would others. Like I have said, the statements above are incorrect until given the chance to communicate with animals in a direct way. Not by some crazy physic person who believes they can communicate with animals, but really can't.