Michael Vick

[Arthur Dent]

And to add to my list of things that infuriate me, put PETA on there. Put them right at the top for that matter, even with the boar hunter and the animal skeet shooter. Like those people, they have a complete misunderstanding and lack of respect for the world in which they live.

I may not disagree, but care to elaborate on that?

I can elaborate for hours if you like.

In one sentence, I would say they have a complete misunderstanding of the food chain and our place in it.

Just to play devil's advocate, isn't this basically an argument that what is natural must also be good? That might makes right?

[jim]

And to add to my list of things that infuriate me, put PETA on there. Put them right at the top for that matter, even with the boar hunter and the animal skeet shooter. Like those people, they have a complete misunderstanding and lack of respect for the world in which they live.

I may not disagree, but care to elaborate on that?

I can elaborate for hours if you like.

In one sentence, I would say they have a complete misunderstanding of the food chain and our place in it.

Just to play devil's advocate, isn't this basically an argument that what is natural must also be good? That might makes right?

Not following you.

It's natural to eat meat. I understand that we don't need meat everyday and that we eat too much in general, but humans have been eating meat forever. It's completely natural, completely normal, and that urge to hunt and gather is real.

The one concrete example that I can think of with PETA is the protesting of thinning out deer populations. When deer are disease ridden, starving, and running out into the highways due to overpopulation it's beneficial to thin them out. PETA will object, citing the treatment of an individual animal, but neglecting the entire species.

It's the baby out with the bathwater with them.

[ghostrunner]

How do we know that the dogs don't enjoy the fighting and the torture?

I didn't say we shouldn't pass judgment on Vick. What I did say is that I would hope that an incident like this would cause all of us to pause and think about our own behaviour that may or may not fall somewhere in these grey areas.

My concern is that it's just too easy to brand Vick some sort of monster without really thinking about the whole society we live in that tolerates cruelty to animals in various forms, even if it's in less obvious and less black-and-white ways.

Fair enough. I think it comes down to your gut impression on this kind of thing. I don't feel that bad about the chickens. The pecking order, no pun intended does seem to matter. Some animals seem more demonstrative and seem to exhibit more emotional behavior than others. I think you could beat a rooster with a stick and the next day it probably wouldn't act any different. In fact they're natural state seems to be fright. Dogs, horses, or cats however, are usually friendly but can easily become frightened and it's very clear to the average person when they are.

How are the lobsters and chickens different? I know the lobsters in the tank don't bother me. Obviously they don't bother most people. Why is there a line drawn there? Why can't it be drawn at chickens? I don't know. They're interesting questions.

[clement]

And to add to my list of things that infuriate me, put PETA on there. Put them right at the top for that matter, even with the boar hunter and the animal skeet shooter. Like those people, they have a complete misunderstanding and lack of respect for the world in which they live.

I may not disagree, but care to elaborate on that?

I can elaborate for hours if you like.

In one sentence, I would say they have a complete misunderstanding of the food chain and our place in it.

Just to play devil's advocate, isn't this basically an argument that what is natural must also be good? That might makes right?

Not following you.

It's natural to eat meat. I understand that we don't need meat everyday and that we eat too much in general, but humans have been eating meat forever. It's completely natural, completely normal, and that urge to hunt and gather is real.

The one concrete example that I can think of with PETA is the protesting of thinning out deer populations. When deer are disease ridden, starving, and running out into the highways due to overpopulation it's beneficial to thin them out. PETA will object, citing the treatment of an individual animal, but neglecting the entire species.

It's the baby out with the bathwater with them.

jim, aren't you throwing out the baby with the bathwater as well? It would seem to me that PETA stands for a lot of things that you agree with, but because part of their message is more extreme than you would take it, or because they have some views on some issues that are at odds with your own, you've labelled them an organization with complete misunderstanding and lack of respect for the world in which we live.

It may be natural to eat meat, but it doesn't mean that choosing not to has any adverse consequences. And just because we've always done something doesn't mean we always have to as well.

And the overpopulation of deer, with deer roaming into highways, a lot of that has to do with our continued expanse of urban areas into wilderness. Furthermore, PETA doesn't blanketly support allowing deer populations to grow unchecked. They support other methods of population control, like sterilization projects, which have (to my knowledge) shown to be effective even at relatively low levels of sterilization.

In addition, there have been deer population control methods used in some cities where the solution is just to round them up, bolt them with an electrical shock and kill them. PETA has fought these approaches and has organized efforts to round up the deer and relocate them to other sites. There have been cases where they have found relocation sites for deer and the cities have basically ignored these options, going forward with a slaughter approach. I'm not fully versed in all of this, but what is wrong with what PETA is doing in a case like this? (the one that comes to mind was in San Antonio Texas)

[clement]

How do we know that the dogs don't enjoy the fighting and the torture?

I didn't say we shouldn't pass judgment on Vick. What I did say is that I would hope that an incident like this would cause all of us to pause and think about our own behaviour that may or may not fall somewhere in these grey areas.

My concern is that it's just too easy to brand Vick some sort of monster without really thinking about the whole society we live in that tolerates cruelty to animals in various forms, even if it's in less obvious and less black-and-white ways.

Fair enough. I think it comes down to your gut impression on this kind of thing. I don't feel that bad about the chickens. The pecking order, no pun intended does seem to matter. Some animals seem more demonstrative and seem to exhibit more emotional behavior than others. I think you could beat a rooster with a stick and the next day it probably wouldn't act any different. In fact they're natural state seems to be fright. Dogs, horses, or cats however, are usually friendly but can easily become frightened and it's very clear to the average person when they are.

How are the lobsters and chickens different? I know the lobsters in the tank don't bother me. Obviously they don't bother most people. Why is there a line drawn there? Why can't it be drawn at chickens? I don't know. They're interesting questions.

There is research on this kind of stuff that is probably a lot more reliable than our gut impressions. I can't do the search now, but from what I've read in the past, animals definitely feel pain, including birds (including chickens) and there is also a pretty good deal of evidence to suggest that even fish feel pain as well. I don't know about lobsters and other crustaceans though.

[jim]

And to add to my list of things that infuriate me, put PETA on there. Put them right at the top for that matter, even with the boar hunter and the animal skeet shooter. Like those people, they have a complete misunderstanding and lack of respect for the world in which they live.

I may not disagree, but care to elaborate on that?

I can elaborate for hours if you like.

In one sentence, I would say they have a complete misunderstanding of the food chain and our place in it.

Just to play devil's advocate, isn't this basically an argument that what is natural must also be good? That might makes right?

Not following you.

It's natural to eat meat. I understand that we don't need meat everyday and that we eat too much in general, but humans have been eating meat forever. It's completely natural, completely normal, and that urge to hunt and gather is real.

The one concrete example that I can think of with PETA is the protesting of thinning out deer populations. When deer are disease ridden, starving, and running out into the highways due to overpopulation it's beneficial to thin them out. PETA will object, citing the treatment of an individual animal, but neglecting the entire species.

It's the baby out with the bathwater with them.

jim, aren't you throwing out the baby with the bathwater as well? It would seem to me that PETA stands for a lot of things that you agree with, but because part of their message is more extreme than you would take it, or because they have some views on some issues that are at odds with your own, you've labelled them an organization with complete misunderstanding and lack of respect for the world in which we live.

They are an organization that in general views things at a myopic level, looking at the individual rather than the species more often than not. If they want to help, have some of them show up at a Trout Unlimited stream rehabilitation project. Oh wait, they did that once, and proceeded to trounce through the stream spooking fish(and thereby safeguarding the fish from the torture of being caught and possibly eaten), without a clue of the damage to the aquatic vegetation and insect life that the whole food chain is based on. Out goes the baby with the bathwater.

Maybe once they could actually show up to something like this and help restore the natural environment that man has destroyed.
[/quote]

It may be natural to eat meat, but it doesn't mean that choosing not to has any adverse consequences. And just because we've always done something doesn't mean we always have to as well.

That is not their stance, they don't say this is my choice and I'll let you live your life. They make their stance, and oppose the other. You aren't suggesting that PETA is an organization tolerant of other approaches, are you? And I wonder if they insist on members eating organically grown soybean chilli? I know of one person who puts zero thought into where his veggies come from, and how many animals has he indirectly killed by supporting an industry that absolutely pillages the land with poor farming practices and poisoning the earth with ridiculous amounts of chemicals. Out goes the baby with the bathwater again.

And the overpopulation of deer, with deer roaming into highways, a lot of that has to do with our continued expanse of urban areas into wilderness. Furthermore, PETA doesn't blanketly support allowing deer populations to grow unchecked. They support other methods of population control, like sterilization projects, which have (to my knowledge) shown to be effective even at relatively low levels of sterilization.

In addition, there have been deer population control methods used in some cities where the solution is just to round them up, bolt them with an electrical shock and kill them. PETA has fought these approaches and has organized efforts to round up the deer and relocate them to other sites. There have been cases where they have found relocation sites for deer and the cities have basically ignored these options, going forward with a slaughter approach. I'm not fully versed in all of this, but what is wrong with what PETA is doing in a case like this? (the one that comes to mind was in San Antonio Texas)

It's not that PETA does not have ideas that I support, it's they arrive at the same point as I by a very different road, and use methods that do nothing to polarize people. Therefore, when I agree with their stance on Foie Gras for example, or huge animal operations as another, my voice isn't heard. Nobody wants to hear me talk about those things, because PETA has already opened their blowholes and spewed forth so much garbage using tactics that are completely counter to getting anything done that nobody will listen.