Pharyngula

You are right, that is soooo PETA. What really annoys me (to say the least) is that "animal rights" groups such as PETA get lumped with environmentalists in the media - I've seen articles with titles to the effect of, "Environmentalists pitted against another..." Of course, the goal of the media is to create controversy where none may exist, but PETA are the anti-environmentalists - they believe that the rights of individual animals trump the rights of other organisms in the environment. This of course leads them to crazily illogical campaigns, such as one in Hawaii to destroy hundreds (or thousands?) of feral cats in the Volcanoes National Park area to help protect native birds. Why cats who were released by irresponsible humans have more 'rights' than the birds that evolved in that habitat is beyond me.

Posted by: Biotunes | February 20, 2007 4:55 PM

This seems pretty par for the course for peta unfotunetly.

I am all for treating animals well before eating them, and in many cases factory farms are not a good thing. but this is just silly.

Am I just weird to want my food to have lived well before being slaughtered humanely?

Posted by: Cat of Many Faces | February 20, 2007 4:56 PM

My favorite discussion ever on PETA ad campaigns was this post "Is PETA the same group as Operation Rescue?" over at Pandagon. Amanda picked out six things in common.

1.They think grossing you out is an argument.
2. They think women are just bodies to be manipulated for their ends instead of full human beings. (see state of the union ad)
3.Both exploit tender young women as cheap labor for their cause.
4.Both prefer to advocate for "victims" that are silent and therefore can be projected onto. (I mean chickens? c'mon)
5.Both have a strong, irrational loathing for science.(chickens are as smart as kids e.g., as well as every argument I've ever seen the ARAs make on scienceblogs in which they explain to scientists how our jobs can be done with computers rather than animals and animal products)
6.Neither seems to care that much about the real life well-being of the objects of their advocacy as they claim to care. (Peta kills about 60% of the animals they capture - also fits with biotunes' comment)

I think she's dead on. They use just the same kind of idiot denialist tactics as the fundies and right-wingers. Anything to accomplish an their goal, any lie, any distortion, and exploitation of fellow humans becomes ok.

Posted by: quitter | February 20, 2007 5:04 PM

the cognitive abilities of a chicken rival that of cats, dogs, and even young humans."
If that's true, then I suggest eating young humans should be ok.

This is, BTW, one of the strongest arguements against animal torture, eating meat, etc. The general idea is detailed HERE

Let's face it, the mental capacity of a chicken/dog/cat might actually rival that of a human newborn.

Posted by: Matt | February 20, 2007 5:12 PM

The ad also makes a ridiculous scientific claim--par for the course for PETA--that "the cognitive abilities of a chicken rival that of cats, dogs, and even young humans."

Is this really "ridiculous?" This article, for example, seems to suggest that the claim is at least plausible (I suppose "young humans" might be a bit of stretch--although not if it refers to human fetuses or perhaps newborn babies).

I'm a member of PETA. I don't agree with everything they do or everything their spokespeople say. But I do think they do far more good than harm, more good than any other animal rights or animal welfare organization. They have a solid record of real accomplishment at improving the treatment and well-being of animals.

Posted by: Jason | February 20, 2007 5:35 PM

At least based on the description of the study in that article, the results most certainly don't support their conclusion.

Care to elaborate?

Posted by: Jason | February 20, 2007 5:45 PM

"They have a solid record of real accomplishment at improving the treatment and well-being of animals."

Does that include killing dogs in the back of a van and dumping them at the local grocery store?

Posted by: John McKay | February 20, 2007 5:49 PM

Does that include killing dogs in the back of a van and dumping them at the local grocery store?

No.

Posted by: Jason | February 20, 2007 5:57 PM

Well a well marbled prime ribeye does get me pretty excited....

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 20, 2007 6:13 PM

I'm a member of PETA. I don't agree with everything they do or everything their spokespeople say. But I do think they do far more good than harm, more good than any other animal rights or animal welfare organization. They have a solid record of real accomplishment at improving the treatment and well-being of animals.

Newkirk runs that place like a cult. I'm sorry but anyone that compares chicken farms and pig slaughterhouses to Nazi death camps is right off the charts wacko in my book. The apology she gave doesn't change the fact that they thought it was a good idea and a valid comparison in the first place. The support of people like the ALF and Rodney Coronado is inexcusable and taints anything else they do.

Posted by: Rev. bigDumbChimp | February 20, 2007 6:23 PM

jbark,

The author of the study is quoted as saying that it shows that hens have "awareness of the near future," not "knowledge of the future." Of course, no one can definitively prove that any other being is conscious or self-aware, not even other human beings. We infer it from their behavior.

Posted by: Jason | February 20, 2007 6:32 PM

"Well a well marbled prime ribeye does get me pretty excited...."

I like raw cow flesh warmed to room temperature and a dash of Worchestershire Sauce added. Mmm, yummy.

Posted by: Bird Advocate | February 20, 2007 6:39 PM

I think once you say "I'm a member of PETA" you need to say "we", not "they". Think of it like that: "we" do these things ... and maybe you will reconsider being a member. If not, mayber you will reconsider giving money to groups you don't care to be identified with. If neither, maybe you will accept your complicity/support and own up to it.

I hate it when the ACLU defends the KKK. But we do it ("they" - I just belong, I'm not a lawyer) for reasons I support, so I say "we". If if comes to the point I can't say "we" any more, I'll quit being a member.

I know this is tangential at best, but it's something that bugs me, so I say it.

Posted by: The Ridger | February 20, 2007 7:09 PM

It's all to do with raised states of conciousness. Just as atheists consider themselves to have a higher state of conciousness than superstitious religious people, so do us vegans when comparing ourselves to meat eaters. Just as the human world will no doubt be completely secular one day (if we manage to survive that long) I also believe it will be a vegetarian world also. We will regard meat eating as being in the same category as long forgotten primitive practices such as witchcraft, cannibalism, slavery, etc.

So, next time you are sneering at dumb fundies for their stupid beliefs and topsy-turvy values, remember that there are vegans who think of meat-eaters in exactly the same way. We would like you to consider raising your conciousness in just the same way that you would like religeos to do.

Posted by: Tom | February 20, 2007 7:12 PM

Just as the human world will no doubt be completely secular one day (if we manage to survive that long) I also believe it will be a vegetarian world also.

(shrug) Maybe. Maybe we'll invent a way to have a nice juicy steak that doesn't come attached to a cow. Maybe we'll stuff all the cows into cow-sized tubes and plug them all into a "Cow-Matrix" where they'll lead happy lives running free in green pastures right up until we pull the plug.

I can't see all vegans going strictly vegetarian, there are too many burger, chicken, and turkey substitutes in the vegan section of my local grocery store. It seems to me that vegans spend way too much time trying to replicate the taste of flesh.

If someone figured a way to make plants produce meat I think the whole vegan thing would just stumble to a halt.

(I would love someone to genetically engineer a steak tree! I'd grow one right next to the barbeque! Ooh! A desk made from the wood would smell like teriyaki!)

Posted by: Calladus | February 20, 2007 7:45 PM

Jason, that's not my job.

The job of the researcher is to convincingly show that simpler explanations of a behavior have been ruled out. And that's really always the 64 thousand dollar question when it comes to experiments trying to show higher level cognitive abilities in things that can't talk to us.

Read the chimp language literature a bit if you want to REALLY see how sticky the issue can get. And if birds are really your thing, read up on the research on Alex, the grey parrot, where you'll see just how much work has gone into ruling out "simple" explanations of his behavior.

And as for your opening retort, B.F. Skinner's corpse is smiling somewhere. Cognition smognition.

Posted by: jbark | February 20, 2007 7:59 PM

Seems like PETA is coming at this from the entirely wrong angle. There's no need to make up nonsense about chickens being as smart as humans when commercial poultry farming is already an environmental disaster and an excellent vector for zoonotic disease.

Posted by: kurage | February 20, 2007 8:08 PM

Bah! The Jains make PETA look like pikers.

The difference is that humans (and probably a few animal species) are moral agents, and therefor have rights.

Any animals that are not moral agents are not entitled to "rights". They should, however, be entitled to humane treatment by thoe animals that are moral agents. That gets into a whole can of worms, because it PETA claims that animals have rights, then they are claiming that they are moral agents... so what are they going to do about how cats treat mice of (more realisticly,) how orcas treat seals? So far humans (in aggregate, individuals vary) are the only species that shows any concern for the emotional state of their food.

I aLSO find it amusing how much "moral superiority" is attached to one's diet. The whole kosher thing comes to mind, plus all the newage fads.

Oh, and what's wrong with cannibalism?

Posted by: Graculus | February 20, 2007 8:14 PM

You've all seen the PETA stripper, right?

http://www.peta.org/feat/stateoftheunion/f-stateoftheunion.asp

Posted by: George | February 20, 2007 8:19 PM

We would like you to consider raising your conciousness in just the same way that you would like religeos to do.

I see George just beat me to it, but how exactly does objectifying women by having them talk about PETA while stripping raise anything but a penis here and there?

Posted by: Carlie | February 20, 2007 8:55 PM

but how exactly does objectifying women by having them talk about PETA while stripping raise anything but a penis here and there?

How is stripping *not* objectification?

Posted by: Graculus | February 20, 2007 9:17 PM

All behavioral research, of animals and humans, involves inferences of mental processes from observable behavior.

that's not quite correct. A lot of the study of animal behavior involves inference, OTOH, an awful lot involves direct experimentation, both behaviorally and physiologically.

For example, there is quite a bit of research studying mental processes by monitoring brain activity directly. Speaking of cats, I do recal some studies on vision in cats directly on point. In studying exactly how visual images were obtained, in what form, and how they were processed, accurate predictions of behavioral responses in given situations could be made. That's not inferential.

Not only that, but the particular studies that come to mind were prime candidates for PETA attacks when i was a grad student, since the procedures involved in actually measuring data on visual processing were rather invasive (details might disturb some, so I won't go into them unless asked to).

anyway, I just want to nip in the bud the idea that the study of animal behavior is entirely based on inference.

The same is true of humans, BTW, hence we can determine the physiology behind schizophrenia, and treat it accordingly (as a very simplistic example).

Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2007 9:39 PM

I disagree.

First of all, should we treat animals ethically? Of course we should. Do we? No. People DON'T want to think about the horror that is the miserable lives of our livestock these days. Remember, this did not use to be the case. Family farms were completely different and much more ethical than factory farms.

Second, chickens do feel pain and fear and such. The farm where I have my observatory keeps free range chickens and they are lovely animals. I'm not saying their assertion in regards to their cognitive abilities is 100% accurate, but I am uncomfortable with people deciding that torture is fine if you are a chicken.

We can do better, many of us vote with our dollars to do better and PETA is, in a way, like the ACLU -- their mission is pretty much above reproach. Their methods may be hit or miss.

Finally, I think it is a pretty good ad. People should be more concerned about how factory farms treat animals.

Disclaimer: I'm not a vegetarian or a PETA member.

Posted by: Michael | February 20, 2007 9:46 PM

I see George just beat me to it, but how exactly does objectifying women by having them talk about PETA while stripping raise anything but a penis here and there?

Well, penises respond to stimuli, and their becoming erect indicates an awareness of future events (copulation). Clearly penises are intelligent, possibly more intelligent than dogs or young humans. Hence, PETA should start a campaign to ensure humane treatment.

I can see it now. Free range penises! No more keeping them cooped up and only let out to be used by humans! PETA is deeply concerned about the plight of penises nationwide!

Which, of course, everyone will simplify to "PETA loves the cock."

(Sorry. Some things just can't be taken seriously.)

Posted by: Azkyroth | February 20, 2007 10:08 PM

Well, penises respond to stimuli, and their becoming erect indicates an awareness of future events (copulation). Clearly penises are intelligent, possibly more intelligent than dogs or young humans. Hence, PETA should start a campaign to ensure humane treatment.

hmm, but have you tested them as independent agents?

http://www.anysonglyrics.com/lyrics/k/kingmissile/detatchablepenis.htm

Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2007 10:14 PM

Something a bit more substantial than training chickens to wait for seeds for 22 seconds.

Well, don't keep us in suspense. How much more substantial? 23 seconds? Or are you thinking of something else entirely?

Posted by: Jason | February 20, 2007 10:24 PM

@Jason

Thanks for trying to address the questions but I have a serious issue with the defense of terrorists like PETA and the ALF.
I still can in no way think that comparing the slaughter of some 6 million (give or take) Humans is even close to the discussion of animal farms. Do I think that the best care to lessen the suffering on animals to the extent that they are bound to be our food should be taken? Yes. Do I think it is still morally ok for humans to eat other animals and use them for research? Yes. But in no way will you ever convince me that the weight is the same as the destruction of millions of humans. And excusing the actions of PETA and the ALF and the bombers they support because they're just trying to raise awareness is insane. The ends justify the means now?

That is very telling on the character of those who make such claims... and defend them. Do you defend PETA's support of the terrorists organization the ALF? They're just trying to raise awareness as well? PETA and Newkirk has supported and known ahead of time of some of their terrorist actions. Are arsons and bombings are a legitimate way to a move political currents? By giving support to the groups or being complacent in these acts they are responsible as well. Indefensible.

Do you support the process that led to PETA itself destroying or neglecting some over 10,000 animals?

Newkirk and her ilk are a cult that supports terrorists who put a on value human life that is less than that of animals. By supporting bombers who risk human lives this is factually true. Anti-Abortion murderers act the same way and excuse their actions with the same disgustingly flawed logic.

PETA and Newkirk's admitted statements about Nazi Death camps are only a window into the workings of the organization, their support of the ALF and arsonists like Coronado are a wide open door.

Do you Jason, think that the life of an animal has the same worth as a human?

@ Michael

We can do better, many of us vote with our dollars to do better and PETA is, in a way, like the ACLU -- their mission is pretty much above reproach. Their methods may be hit or miss.

So are their methods excused? Do they get a pass because they have what some people thinks is a warm and fuzzy ideal? The PETA / ACLU analogy is false. The ACLU works within the law to uphold the constitution and the rights there in, PETA supports those who work outside the law. Please don't confuse the two.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 20, 2007 10:46 PM

Evolving Squid - You claim that when you start tasting good something will come along and eat you. Well, guess what - you already do taste good. So good, in fact, that wild animals that eat one human are hunted and killed because humans are so very tasty that those animals always come back for more. Of course, what you said doesn't follow logically. The logical conclusion to your "argument", is that if human flesh ("long pig") tastes good (you like pork? you have a sweet tooth?), then you will eat it. So why don't you?

Secondly, your flippant remark of eating chickens "because they taste good" is precisely the same argument rapists use. Please try to come up with a less self-centered rationalization.

Posted by: mysh | February 20, 2007 10:53 PM

Rev. BigDumbChimp,

I'd be interested in the evidence you have that Ingrid Newkirk has known beforehand of the "terrorist" acts committed by "ALF". I suspect the DHS would also be interested.
Secondly, who is ALF? I think you'll find that if you do your research diligently, you'll find no actual organisation there, more of a name-umbrella under which individuals may perform their acts of liberation. Specifically, the ALFSG is simply a way to announce achievements of liberation-minded individuals. And you should also note ALFSG's clear rule: "TO take all necessary precautions against harming any animal, human and non-human." (from http://www.hedweb.com/alffaq.htm).

For purposes of comparison of various organisations, I see Ingrid Newkirk and PETA being more frequently compared with Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood. Generally by those people who would lob bombs at abortion clinics.

Personally, I find many of PETA's ad campaigns very clever and well focused (although this one has it sadly backwards), but I'm rather unimpressed with some of the tactics employed by some of their agents (I don't know enough to judge whether it's endemic or not).

Posted by: mysh | February 20, 2007 11:11 PM

chimp,

And excusing the actions of PETA and the ALF and the bombers they support because they're just trying to raise awareness is insane. The ends justify the means now?

Whoa there, cowboy. I didn't say anything about "excusing bombers." You need to pay closer attention to what I actually write.

Do you defend PETA's support of the terrorists organization the ALF?

I find it hard to respond to questions containing this kind of vague and unsubstantiated assertion. Give me a link to a credible source describing support by PETA for something you find objectionable, and I'll tell what I think of it. As I said earlier, I don't support everything PETA does or every statement or claim I've seen by PETA spokespersons, but I do think the organization does far more good than harm.

Do you support the process that led to PETA itself destroying or neglecting some over 10,000 animals?

The opinion piece you link to here (by conservative political columnist Debra J. Saunders, who I don't consider to be a reliable source) discusses euthanizing stray and rescued animals. I do not oppose the practise in principle. I don't know enough about the cited incidents to say whether I think PETA acted inappropriately in each case. Bear in mind that ordinary animal shelters euthanize around 3 or 4 million animals every year. I consider this tragic, but I'm not sure they have a better alternative. The real cause of the problem is commercial animal breeders who produce more animals than there is demand for, people dumping their unwanted pets, labs abandoning unwanted test animals, etc.

Do you Jason, think that the life of an animal has the same worth as a human?

No, but with exceptions. A think the life of a healthy adult chimpanzee can be worth more than the life of an anencephalic human baby, for example.

Posted by: Jason | February 20, 2007 11:15 PM

May I recommend to those interested in this topic (not PETA but animal rights and how these reflect on human society generally) Carol Adams' excellent book, The Sexual Politics of Meat? Also, Jeffrey M. Masson's When Elephants Weep. I went through my own stage of getting all verklempt over the subject whenever it got brought up, mostly because dealing with a majority of people who seemed so completely uncaring about such matters was a real eye opener. The fact is, people very often don't want to think about where their meat comes from, how it is "produced", or about what the lives of "farm animals" is generally like. I say this as one who has in fact been to a slaughterhouse and studied the matter in depth (years ago [and, no, the conditions have not improved]): the meat industry is one without conscience, compassion, or concern -- and not only where the animals it slaughters are concerned; it is a cruel industry to all involved in it save the rich bastards who never bother to drop by and smell the entrails.

Aside from the cruelty to the animals (human and non-human) being something you ought to be concerned about, aside from the poor treatment of the workers, aside from the health issues from the farm to your plate, there is also the damage to the environment. Please, feel free to check it out for yourself.

At the very least, if you are going to continue to eat meat, you should be pushing for better treatment for all involved. And perhaps you might consider too that something died for no better reason than that you wanted to eat it. Wanted; didn't have to (in most cases).

Btw, PETA can go (collectively) jump in a lake. I've heard the arguments about the good they do outweighing the bad, but I don't buy it. I know what people feel about them and how they react to their tactics, and it ain't pretty. They come off as being particularly American in their belligerent, arrogant, self-righteous behavior, and they tarnish truths that can stand on their own without the foolish antics to "support" them.

Posted by: Moody834 | February 20, 2007 11:23 PM

what if every time you had sex you couldn't get dead chickens out of your mind?

You could turn it into high art ...

Posted by: John Pieret | February 20, 2007 11:29 PM

icthyic,

I have solid evidence to back up my claims regarding predators preferring human flesh! Not only is it anecdotal, but it's also n-th hand. Actually, I think I got it from a Hardy Boys book. At least it's a less than 2000 year old fictional source, so I should get credit for that...

Having said that, that is at least a part of the rationale used for hunting those animals that have attacked humans.

Posted by: mysh | February 20, 2007 11:35 PM

Actually, I think I got it from a Hardy Boys book.

genuine coffee spewing moment.

thanks.

Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2007 11:41 PM

I think all beings with the capacity to suffer and to experience enjoyment or happiness have rights, and that the type and magnitude of those rights is basically proportional to the magnitude of those capacities.

talk about inference.

Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2007 11:46 PM

So are their methods excused? Do they get a pass because they have what some people thinks is a warm and fuzzy ideal? The PETA / ACLU analogy is false. The ACLU works within the law to uphold the constitution and the rights there in, PETA supports those who work outside the law. Please don't confuse the two.

You missed my point. If you ask someone, "Should we treat animals ethically?" almost everyone will answer yes. If you ask people "Should we protect civil liberties?" almost everyone will answer yes. In a broad sense, there is not much to argue with. The devil is in the details.

I'm not really pro- or anti- PETA, but I do believe we are going astray with factory farms.

I am shocked, on the other hand, that Righties are so anti-ACLU. Like, wtf is wrong with protecting civil liberties?

Posted by: Michael | February 20, 2007 11:48 PM

but I certainly don't see anything to ridicule about the goal itself.

well, i certainly see some to ridicule, depending on the intended goal (again, saving zebras from hyenas comes to mind as just one of the more extreme examples), but so far I'm seeing an awful lot more to ridicule in the method.

Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2007 11:50 PM

#71 - talk about inference.

no comment.

no, jason, that only works when there is an obvious contradiction, as was present in your statement.

the way you used it was just...

ridiculous? non-sequitor?

both?

Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2007 11:53 PM

jason, that only works when there is an obvious contradiction

I don't know why you used it, then.

Posted by: Jason | February 20, 2007 11:55 PM