…and this is a 
It's been a rough few weeks for the accommodationists — they keep raising the same tired old complaints, poorly, and with little flair or reason or persuasive rhetoric, and they keep getting swatted down by those rascally loud "New Atheists. Excuse me if I'm starting to feel a bit cocky, but I'm still waiting for either an interesting or somewhat persuasive argument against our position. In fact, if you want to know exactly how I feel, here's the video.
(PETA is not happy about this, which tells you just how ridiculous that organization is.)
It's nice to be able to take them out so easily, but we can't feel too great a sense of accomplishment…they're just buzzy little flies.
Comments
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 18, 2009 1:23 PM
PeTA.
Awesome
Posted by: cervantes
|
June 18, 2009 1:23 PM
I assume the PETA has a problem with killing tapeworms and malaria.
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | June 18, 2009 1:23 PM
Nice to know the new prez has good reflexes, for a change.
Wonder how much the fly will go for on Ebay?
Posted by: JD | June 18, 2009 1:27 PM
The universe was fine tuned for flies. Hence the Christian Fly Coalition.
Posted by: rob | June 18, 2009 1:27 PM
i wonder if PETA members use antibiotics? if they do, they are guilty of killing billions of innocent bacteria.
Posted by: cag | June 18, 2009 1:31 PM
I wonder what PETA's position is on Lions, Tigers and other carnivores?
Posted by: Bren | June 18, 2009 1:31 PM
"Nice to know the new prez has good reflexes, for a change. "
Hey, let's be fair - Bush dodged that shoe like a pro.
Posted by: Holbach
|
June 18, 2009 1:33 PM
It's a good thing the President isn't a Jain. All sorts of bugs and larger critters will make their way into the White House and take up safe residence. Perhaps PETA will have an office in the basement to assure the staff do not commit murder.
Posted by: Chris Davis | June 18, 2009 1:33 PM
There really isn't much this man can't succeed at, is there? And with aplomb, too.
Send him over here when you're done, please.
Posted by: Clemens | June 18, 2009 1:34 PM
Yeah. And Bush would have shot the fly. With new-clear (sic) missiles.
Posted by: Bren | June 18, 2009 1:36 PM
"Nice to know the new prez has good reflexes, for a change. "
Hey, let's be fair - Bush dodged that shoe like a pro.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 18, 2009 1:38 PM
This is true. That's was the apex of my respect for him.
Too bad it was during a sign of a population's total disrespect for him.
But I guess in a way, it fits.
Posted by: CalGeorge | June 18, 2009 1:39 PM
Exposing and documenting the cruelty on factory farms is not ridiculous.
Posted by: Souljacker | June 18, 2009 1:39 PM
To be fair, all I got from the PETA article was that they were surprised so many people expected them to comment and that Obama is a human being as flawed as any other and he may do things they disagree with now and then.
Posted by: Chris Davis | June 18, 2009 1:40 PM
I think you'll find that's nook-yuler.Posted by: CalGeorge | June 18, 2009 1:42 PM
http://www.peta.org/factsheet/files/FactsheetDisplay.asp?ID=107
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | June 18, 2009 1:46 PM
Bren @ 7:
Well, after his 1st riotous inauguration, no doubt he spent a lot of time in the gym playing dodgeball.
Posted by: tsg | June 18, 2009 1:46 PM
Shill somewhere else CalGeorge. Whatever good things PETA has done, objecting over swatting a fly is pretty ridiculous.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
June 18, 2009 1:46 PM
See, it took irreducible complexity to even kill the irreducibly complex fly.
How else could a fly or a human arise, than if some kind of human being were to make it?
Oh, that's not quite right. Let's see, since Obama and flies are god-like, how could anything but god make them?
Damn it, since Obama and flies are like Satan, Satan is the creator and the god.
Yeah, I think that's it.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: mjs | June 18, 2009 1:53 PM
PETA's somewhat neutral response to this non-event was hardly controversial or unique or "ridiculous" (Myers: "...which tells you just how ridiculous that organization is."). One commenter here talks about tapeworms and malaria as if they are interchangeable with a fly buzzing around an interview ("President Obama smacked the malaria!"). Has not killing when we don't have to become taboo?
++++
Posted by: Primewonk | June 18, 2009 1:54 PM
Yeah, but could Obama have done it using chopsticks?
Posted by: dogmaticatheist | June 18, 2009 1:54 PM
I have to say Obama is a man of class that the White House rarely sees. Instead of expecting someone else to clean up the dead fly, he picks it up himself!
Posted by: Geoffrey Falk | June 18, 2009 1:56 PM
To be fair, all I got from the PETA article was that they were surprised so many people expected them to comment and that Obama is a human being as flawed as any other and he may do things they disagree with now and then.
Precisely. Not to mention that the PETA headquarters and branch offices would surely be crawling with Obama-supporting atheists ... who actually have quite a lot in common, all things considered, with the frequenters of this fine site.
Posted by: dogmaticatheist | June 18, 2009 1:57 PM
I have to say Obama is a man of class that the White House rarely sees. Instead of expecting someone else to clean up the dead fly, he picks it up himself!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 18, 2009 1:58 PM
And quite a lot not in common with many.
Posted by: People Eating Tasty Animals | June 18, 2009 1:58 PM
CalGeorge,
Firstly, some of those reports seemed a little sensationalized to me. You getting this info somewhere that's not the peta webpage? Almost like they were fine-tuned to cause a knee jerk reaction in the reader.
Secondly, you're going to get your arse beat down because people around here like to play with the trolls before they feed on them, but then you probably like that otherwise you wouldn't be posting here.
Thirdly, if we're comparing activist organizations, PETA is like 4Chan/b only dumber and less classy. The lady who runs it is right next to Sarah Palin on the list of people who need to STFU.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 18, 2009 2:02 PM
CalGeorge
Tell us about Rodney Coronado's and ELF's connections to PeTA.
Posted by: dogmaticatheist | June 18, 2009 2:03 PM
I have to say Obama is a man of class that the White House rarely sees. Instead of expecting someone else to clean up the dead fly, he picks it up himself!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 18, 2009 2:06 PM
dogmaticatheist
please, for the love of everything that... is
please please read the error message.
Posted by: Sara | June 18, 2009 2:08 PM
Sorry, PETA is full of crazy. The lady running it is a complete nut job and they just like to pump out sensationalistic propaganda. I'm sure some people here have heard of their sea kitten campaign. There are many better animal rights groups that deserve support more than PETA. The fact that they had any reaction at all to a fly being swatted is just over the top.
Posted by: pandera | June 18, 2009 2:09 PM
I have no problem with slamming PETA when they deserve it, but this article ain't it. It was a perfectly sane and fairly lighthearted response to a silly story and the silly reporters begging them for a juicy quote...
Posted by: varlo | June 18, 2009 2:09 PM
Years ago I parodied PETA by creating PETP (People for the Ethical Treatment of Plants)claiming such horrors as death by herbicide, pulling living plants bodily from their homes, lopping off branches, boiling, stir frying, and steaming helpless veggies, etc, etc. etc. If PETA really is concerned for flies it may be time to resurrect PETP.
Posted by: Michelle R
|
June 18, 2009 2:12 PM
Oh Calgeorge. Did you notice that your boastful list of accomplishments comes from PETA'S WEBSITE?
Of course they won't list all their failures and dementias and affiliations with ELF.
Posted by: Joe Bleau | June 18, 2009 2:12 PM
Problem is, seems that for every issue that PETA gets right, they go and pull one of these.
Posted by: tsg | June 18, 2009 2:12 PM
Right.
From PETA:
In other words, we shouldn't expect a mere human to know any better. How condescending and not at all neutral.
Followed by a paragraph hawking their humane bug catchers (for those who want to be "a bigger person"), one of which they sent to the White House.
No, this wasn't ridiculous at all.
Posted by: qbsmd | June 18, 2009 2:13 PM
For PETA, that response was surprisingly sane (that bar is low). It was trying to push merchandise, not compare killing flies to abortion, NAZIs, etc. like their usual statements.
Posted by: mjs | June 18, 2009 2:18 PM
No, this wasn't ridiculous at all.
In my opinion their response is not ridiculous, and is consistent with their avowed philosophy. If you seek monsters you will find them, I suppose.
++++
Posted by: Fred the Hun
|
June 18, 2009 2:21 PM
PETA
People for the Ethical Treatment of Arthropoda
Posted by: Geoffrey Falk | June 18, 2009 2:23 PM
And quite a lot not in common with many.
Absolutely. But in Myers' overreaction to PETA's innocuous news release, and the subsequent regard for people who have posted legitimate facts about PETA's accomplishments here as being "trolls," you (collectively) have more in common with those Bad People, psychologically speaking, than you might imagine.
Ach, but now I'm a "troll" too, aren't I? In-groups, gotta love 'em....
Posted by: mr P | June 18, 2009 2:23 PM
I even heard that the white house is treated for termites. To top it all off, there is a rumor that the family dog may have at one time been treated for both worms and fleas. This fly incident is just the tip of the iceberg.
Bush would have done the same thing but only after the fly was labeld an enemy combatant....
Posted by: damnedyankee | June 18, 2009 2:23 PM
CalGeorge, this is really the wrong blog to come to and brag about hindering biological research.
Posted by: TaoMacGuy | June 18, 2009 2:24 PM
And I just love the PETA "handy-dandy bug catcher" (https://www.petacatalog.org/prodinfo.asp?number=HP220) for only $8.
Ah, I believe it's called a glass and a piece of paper.
Sigh.
Posted by: Lotharloo | June 18, 2009 2:25 PM
For fucks sake PETA.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | June 18, 2009 2:25 PM
Wax on, Daniel-san!
Posted by: tsg | June 18, 2009 2:26 PM
That's what makes them ridiculous.
Posted by: Joe Bleau | June 18, 2009 2:28 PM
FWIW, I don't think that PETA and it's supporters are "monsters". However, I do think that the organization tends to attract (quite intentionally) folks who are deeply misguided, and often seriously damaged. People who, whether intentionally or not, adopt a grossly distended sense of empathy to cover a deep and abiding misanthropic mindset.
Posted by: docventure | June 18, 2009 2:29 PM
"•After negotiations with PETA, juice-makers POM, Welch’s, and Ocean Spray agreed to stop funding animal experiments."
So that's why I can't get fresh squeezed monkey juice!
Posted by: Joe Bleau | June 18, 2009 2:31 PM
Pedantry preemption: Yes, I know the difference between 'it's' and 'its'. I'm a crappy typist, and lousy proofreader.
Posted by: Travis | June 18, 2009 2:34 PM
Geoffrey Falk,
By my count only one person called CalGeorge a troll, I think that is an inaccurate term so I would not use it in this case. I think he is ignorant, and his list pretty meaningless though. PETA is ridiculous, and even if that list is correct in some way that does not change.
And while their reaction seems sort of mild compared to previous reactions it still seems silly. It was a fly, and the attitude they show in the article is still ridiculous.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 18, 2009 2:35 PM
Apicomplexans aren't animals.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | June 18, 2009 2:35 PM
I thought Obama was ultra cool. First, he fixed a steely gaze on the insect, with a sort of Terminator-like targeting system, then took it down with a Miaggi-esqe, faster than the speed of light action, knowing, before the move was done, that it was a clean kill.
I then thought of a similar scenario featuring our immediate past president, Dubya. He probably would have waited untill the fly landed on his face, then, in slow motion, slap himself in the head, knocking himself unconsious. He then would fall to the floor, as the fly hovers above him, shitting in his eye. Upon reviving, Dubya would declare the fly to be part of the "Axis of Weevil", wobble to his desk, pull out a .44 magnum from the drawer, and proceed to fire off six rounds, all missing the fly, but injuring two assistant producers and an intern in the process.
Oh, and PETA means asshole in all languages, including Braille. It is a universal constant.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | June 18, 2009 2:36 PM
When I heard about it I too thought this made PETA look ridiculous, however, having now actually read what they wrote its clear PZed and others are the ones overreacting and mischaracterizing the situtation.
Posted by: Matthew Pickard | June 18, 2009 2:38 PM
My wife called me a spider killer after smacked one before we sat down to eat our turkey bacon for breakfest.
Who will protect me from PETA?
Posted by: Troy | June 18, 2009 2:39 PM
What is the pragmatic endgame of this accomodationism battle?
Posted by: Troy | June 18, 2009 2:43 PM
What is the pragmatic endgame of this accomodationism battle?
Posted by: whitebird | June 18, 2009 2:45 PM
@36 - Ah yes, this (copypasted from PETA's blog, not the Onion):
"The AVMA plans to team up veterinarians and employees of Pike Place Fish Market for a dead fish sea kitten toss at its upcoming convention in Seattle. The event organizers promise that the event will be "outrageously fun."
Come again?
My gut tells me that the AVMA wouldn't dare try to organize a dead cat toss—so why not show the same consideration for sea kittens? The AVMA is turning a blind eye to the deaths of billions of sea kittens who suffocate on boat decks or are cut open while they are still conscious—all thanks to the cruel fishing industry. And those sea kittens feel pain, just like land kittens do."
http://blog.peta.org/archives/tags/pike_place_fish_market/
Posted by: Troy | June 18, 2009 2:46 PM
What is the pragmatic endgame of this accomodationism battle?
Posted by: Roland Branconnier | June 18, 2009 2:47 PM
Obama should take a lesson from Norman Bates in Psycho (1960):
"They're probably watching me. Well, let them. Let them see what kind of a person I am. I'm not even going to swat that fly. I hope they are watching... they'll see. They'll see and they'll know, and they'll say, "Why, she[he] wouldn't even harm a fly..."
Posted by: ArchangelChuck | June 18, 2009 2:49 PM
I knew it! Obama is a ninja.
Posted by: Screamin' Demon | June 18, 2009 2:50 PM
PETA is ridiculous. About ten years ago, they went on record opposing the use of chimpanzees in television shows and commercials. Why?
Because they were being dressed up in human clothing, and the psychos at PETA determined that this was demeaning to the chimps.
Seriously. I am not making this up.
PETA is beyond ridiculous.
Posted by: Science Avenger | June 18, 2009 2:52 PM
Ah, the differences we could imagine in all the alternative universes where the previous president and VP candidates found themselves sitting in that chair:
Obama smacks the fly smartly.
McCain missed, and is still finishing his windup.
Palin ran screaming out of the studio accusing the MSM of "planting the wasp to make her look bad".
Biden wouldn't have noticed the fly.
Bush shot the fly with a bazooka.
Cheney shot at the fly and hit the interviewer in the face.
Seriously,
That really is the perfect metaphor for the new-atheist (god I hate that moniker) critics. Buzzing, droning on, monotonous in their contentlessness, lightweights (on this topic) making arguments that would have them cringing were they on any other topic (particularly Francis Collins).
Luckily, this is one the our many social problems (like gay marriage) that will simply go away with time, as each new generation raised seeing, with their own eyes, the once demonized group being just another part of the typical human landscape, replacing the older generation raised to think of them as evil and "less than human".
I think that's one of the aspects of the militant atheists that their critics get least. We've set the bar pretty low. Sure, we'd love a society where everyone approached religion with as much rationally as any other issue. We'll settle for one that treats us as just another group within it, with assets to admire and opinions to be criticized, the same as all the others.
Posted by: JustaTech | June 18, 2009 2:53 PM
No, PETA needs all the mocking they can get. I mean, they're going to harass the *veterinarians* group that's meeting in Seattle in July because the vets are going to have the famous Pike Place Market fish-throwers come and demonstrate throwing a fish. A *dead* fish, that will likely be someone's dinner.
How is that not beyond stupid? I guess we should be glad they're not managing to be misogynistic about this too.
Posted by: Travis | June 18, 2009 2:54 PM
Troy, please read the entire error message, do not try again.
I hope I beat the Rev on this one.
Posted by: Troy
|
June 18, 2009 2:54 PM
What is the pragmatic endgame of this accomodationism battle?
Posted by: whitebird | June 18, 2009 2:56 PM
LOL @ 64
Posted by: Dahan | June 18, 2009 2:56 PM
PETA = FAIL
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | June 18, 2009 2:57 PM
@CalGeorge:
What about the 97% of animals that PETA takes in and euthanizes?
Posted by: SocraticGadfly | June 18, 2009 2:58 PM
A better flea-killing idea involving PETA and Pamela Anderson.
Posted by: Scrabcake | June 18, 2009 2:59 PM
Look. I like fish. I like watching them, I like eating them, I like feeding them, I like fishing. The tossing of fish at the pike's place market is a tradition. The fact that they're having a contest is cute. The fish are dead, and they probably couldn't form a coherent thought while they were on the deck suffocating except for the fish equivalent of "ohshit." I feel bad for any creature that's suffering, but fish are not people. They don't have families to go home to or emotions, or imaginations, or really even memories. Frankly, you can make any of humanity's activities sound like some sort of brutal armageddon if you try. For example, how would you like it people were constantly injecting your genitalia with dye and then ripping your sexual organs off to display in vases in the window? Or to have your still living leaves dissected by kids in biology class, or to have your foetuses thrown at bad comedians?
Better save the outrage for real crises.
Posted by: Darren S. A. George | June 18, 2009 3:00 PM
I love the sound byte at the end- "The fly turned out to be Jeff Goldblum..."
Posted by: tsg | June 18, 2009 3:02 PM
I smell a series of YouTube Fly Swatting videos in the works...
Posted by: whitebird | June 18, 2009 3:05 PM
@69:
"For example, how would you like it people were constantly injecting your genitalia with dye and then ripping your sexual organs off to display in vases in the window?"
Hey, you should write copy for @32's org.
Posted by: mjs | June 18, 2009 3:06 PM
All those dead fish...won't they attract flies?
++++
Posted by: Mare | June 18, 2009 3:07 PM
Ha Ha! I just read PETA's response. How insipid. Too bad, they did not say something a bit more enlightened. Perhaps something, like “Well you can’t save all the flies.” Besides, who cares? It was a fly, a pest. It was awesome the way he held his composure, and smacked the crap out of it. Finished his interview, and then tossed it into the trash. The man has style, poise and class. I like him.
Posted by: Tomi | June 18, 2009 3:09 PM
PETA didn't seem that upset - cheap shot.
Posted by: Mare | June 18, 2009 3:10 PM
Ha Ha! I just read PETA's response. How insipid. Too bad, they did not say something a bit more enlightened. Perhaps something, like “Well you can’t save all the flies.” Besides, who cares? It was a fly, a pest. It was awesome the way he held his composure, and smacked the crap out of it. Finished his interview, and then tossed it into the trash. The man has style, poise and class. I like him.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | June 18, 2009 3:11 PM
@56, 62, and 69:
The AVMA-PeTA-fish tossing story was mentioned on Wait, Wait! Don't Tell Me! this week, and I [a] nearly fell over that PeTA was going to the barricades to advocate for fish that are already dead1 and [b] just knew the story would show up here somehow or other.
1 "I'm not dead yet!" "Quiet! You'll be stone dead in a minute!" </python>
Posted by: littlejohn | June 18, 2009 3:13 PM
Jebus. Can't we just agree that PETA is batshit crazy? If they really like flies, let them shit on their own floors and remove their window screens.
And bacteria and such aren't animals. But termites, tapeworms and tsetse flies are. Let the animal lovers cuddle up with those critters.
Furthermore, Bush wouldn't have shot the fly. He'd have had Cheney take care of that. Especially the lawyer flies.
Posted by: tsg | June 18, 2009 3:13 PM
Fixed that for you.
Posted by: Elwood Herring | June 18, 2009 3:20 PM
Amazing coincidence - Just as I started reading this thread I heard Freddie Mercury on my hi-fi singing "Flick of the wrist (and you're dead, baby)"!
Flies - hate the buggers. They spread diseases.
Posted by: Joe Bleau | June 18, 2009 3:23 PM
So damn what? Don't diseases have rights too?Sincerely,
-Jenny McCarthy.
Posted by: SteveM
|
June 18, 2009 3:24 PM
Oh, but Obama did think before he acted. He gave that fly fair warning by first telling it to "go away", when it refused to leave, he acted appropriately.
And did anybody follow the PETA link to the "World's Largest Palmetto Bug" that their cat was supposedly chasing around the house? That thing would have eaten the cat!
Posted by: rohit | June 18, 2009 3:27 PM
Wow PZ and fellow commenters, stop taking cheapshots at PETA. Their reponse, if anything, was good-natured, honest, and even humorous.
The relentless anti-PETA sentiments are surely justified when PETA says and does stupid things, but in instances such as this, it's only vile senseless hatred that reverberates from most of you.
Posted by: Elwood Herring | June 18, 2009 3:31 PM
I swear at the end of that video you can hear a voice saying "help me! help me!"
Posted by: Watchman | June 18, 2009 3:33 PM
Sea kittens? WTF?
Save the space kittens! Adopt a space kitten today!
Posted by: Paul | June 18, 2009 3:34 PM
Damn that was a nice shot.
Posted by: MattB | June 18, 2009 3:35 PM
Obama is just so cool. Damn.
Unfortunately for gay rights, we'll have to wait until his second term (FSM willing) before any initiatives will ever be made.
Posted by: JRD | June 18, 2009 3:37 PM
Have to agree the criticism of PETA seems forced here. Yeah, they've taken a lot of loony positions in the past, but their response on this one was pretty much the blog equivalent of a shrug. It might lead one to suspect that, after pestering them for a response, certain elements in the anti-PETA blogosphere were predisposed to take any answer, however noncommital, as further proof of PETA's "ridiculous[ness]."
Posted by: Tom Morris | June 18, 2009 3:40 PM
What pisses me off most about PETA is that they have so much money to put on all their advertising and PR bullshit about "sea kittens" and flies and so on. Surely, that money would be better spent on, um, animal shelters and trying to rehome pets.
Posted by: MattB | June 18, 2009 3:41 PM
So do PETA supporters/employees not drive or travel by plane or train? Because sometimes my windshield looks like a bad Jackson Pollock painting after a long drive.
Do they refuse antibiotics? Bacteria are alive, ya know?
Posted by: SocraticGadfly | June 18, 2009 3:43 PM
@Rohit 83, PETA's response was anything but.
@MattB 87, pull your head out. Obama's stringing you just like most GOPers string the Religious Right. Though they have their own probs with science at times, vote Green; stop enabling the duopoly.
Posted by: Andrea | June 18, 2009 3:49 PM
Pretty stupid response from PETA.
A better response would have been - I cannot believe you are asking us how we feel about a man swatting a fly! Is world hunger ended? Has climate changed ceased? Have wars all stopped? Surely there must be something more worthy of your big fat expense accounts?
Posted by: SocraticGadfly | June 18, 2009 3:49 PM
Maybe, PETA folks could be like sky-clad or fundamentalist Jains and slowly starve themselves to death to avoid inhaling those pesky bacteria.
Posted by: tsg | June 18, 2009 3:52 PM
Well, let's take their claim that they were pestered for a response at face value. Why do you think that is? If they didn't have a reputation for being unreasonable and ridiculous, who would even think to ask them for their opinion on the swatting of a fly? And if PETA thought that asking them for their opinion on the swatting of a fly was unwarranted, they could simply have ignored it. But no, they chose to respond, and did so in pretty much the way everyone expected them to: they objected to it.
Rule #1: If you're going to complain about the opinion people have of you, stop living up to it.
Posted by: Zar | June 18, 2009 3:56 PM
Though I agree with you that PETA is ridiculous (and this is coming from a total animal lover---these blockheads do way more harm than good), there are some very good reasons to not use primates in entertainment. I know it doesn't look like the chimps are going through anything unpleasant, but getting chimps to act causes a lot of suffering. The cute little chimps we see on television are actually babies---they get HUGE when they reach adulthood. Getting a baby chimp trained for entertainment means separating it from its mother and putting it through a lot of misery. This separation from the parents is really harmful to the chimps, much like removing a human child from its parents and forcing it to work. Plus, the demand for little chimps fuels poaching: hunters kill parents in the wild to get the infant chimps. This is disastrous for the wild chimpanzee population.
Chimps raised for showbusiness end up really screwed-up. It's like what happens to human child stars, only worse. They're not like dogs or cats, who can easily be placed in a home after retirement. They are wild animals.
When they get big and they're not cute any more, they have nowhere to go---zoos and animal sanctuaries can't take them because they're poorly socialized and don't know how to interact with other animals, they're too strong and violent to live with humans, and they can't survive in the wild. So a lot of them end up euthanized.
Posted by: ildi | June 18, 2009 4:01 PM
Good ole PETA!
As Swine Flu Spreads, PETA Seeks Permission to Bring a Real-Life Hog Farm to Ohio Statehouse
Luckily this application has been turned down so far...
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 18, 2009 4:05 PM
Apicomplexans aren't animals.
David, as far as PETA is concerned, that's a slippery slope argument.
I kid you not.
I can count back less than 20 years to when not only were flies not considered animals by animal rights activists, but fish weren't either.
Posted by: mvXfer | June 18, 2009 4:15 PM
From the PETA post:
"He isn't the Buddha, he's a human being, and human beings have a long way to go before they think before they act."
I thought Buddha was a human being. Also, it looked like Obama was thinking before he acted... that was a well-calculated manoeuvre: a slow approach, and then—in one quick motion—the kill.
"If all this has you wondering how you can be a bigger person (figuratively, as well as literally) in your dealings with exoskeletal beings"
How can one be a bigger person, literally, in one's dealings with exoskeletal beings? Why have that parenthetical expression at all? Perhaps these people should think before they approach the keyboard.
Posted by: tsg | June 18, 2009 4:15 PM
As evidence, canned tuna was being boycotted because dolphins were getting caught in the nets. That tuna was getting caught in the nets didn't seem to be an issue.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | June 18, 2009 4:21 PM
Unfortunately, that fly was gay and lobbying for the repeal of DOMA.
On a serious note, there's a new website out there that I'd like Pharyngulites to visit. http://www.obamasplanforgayrights.com, via Andrew Sullivan. There's a petition at the bottom. This is a not-so-pointless poll I'd like to see us all crash. Dr. Myers, your encouragement would be appreciated.
Posted by: Priam | June 18, 2009 4:22 PM
Oh, we can get proud when we kill a fly, all right, in the same way that we can be proud when we swat down creationist arguments. Which is to say, when we do it in one clean, efficient, decisive, and preferably stylish shot.
Posted by: mjs | June 18, 2009 4:23 PM
#94: "If they didn't have a reputation for being unreasonable and ridiculous, who would even think to ask them for their opinion on the swatting of a fly?"
So, akin to rape victims, they were asking for it?
++++
Posted by: Gustav Nyström | June 18, 2009 4:25 PM
"Yeah, but could Obama have done it using chopsticks?"
If there was a god, the entirety of this thread would be devoted to an in-depth discussion of this topic.
Posted by: tsg | June 18, 2009 4:28 PM
@mjs, #102:
Er, what?
Posted by: DGKnipfer | June 18, 2009 4:31 PM
@102
Please explain how rape victims are being unreasonable and ridiculous. This is one of the most insulting comparisons I've ever seen. MJS, go fuck yourself.
Posted by: mjs | June 18, 2009 4:35 PM
tsg: In answer to your "what": you stated that because of "their reputation" PETA was asked a stupid question--that same logic has been used before to link "loose" women with their "asking for it." Now, at the risk of hearing sea kitten rape fly jokes, I must buzz off.
++++
Posted by: tsg | June 18, 2009 4:38 PM
Okay, if you can't see the difference between being asked a question and being raped, buzzing off would be the correct choice.
Posted by: mjs | June 18, 2009 4:40 PM
#105: ? You ask me to explain, and then without hearing an answer you tell me to fuck off. Why?
++++
Posted by: mjs | June 18, 2009 4:42 PM
tsg: You are mistaking content for form.
++++
Posted by: Paul | June 18, 2009 4:44 PM
I'm known for my "overly colorful" sense of humor, but I'm a little surprised that no one finds it absolutely *hilarious* that PETA has a blog called "The PETA files"... that has to do some major subconscious damage to their cause!
Posted by: tsg | June 18, 2009 4:44 PM
Care to explain?
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | June 18, 2009 4:47 PM
Oh, FFS! Not like rape victims at all, you offensive twerp! For one thing, as a public advocacy organization, they literally are "asking for" the media to want their opinions about events related to their defining issue. Second, being asked for a quote in reaction to a news story is hardly equivalent to violent sexual assault. Finally, nobody held a fucking knife to their throat to force them to give the damn quote!
To follow your analogy, it's not that a woman who dresses sexy isn't "asking for" something; it's just that violence and nonconsensual sex isn't it. If she ends up attracting a congenial companion and having a wonderful evening, she's gotten what she was "asking for." Well, PeTA's "short skirt" is their reputation for saying wacky, outrageous things related to animal "rights," and it's a wardrobe they've chosen very carefully. When they get asked for quotes like this, they're getting precisely what they want, and they're nobody's victim.
Sheesh! Is there some corollary to Godwin's Law about going for stupid rape analogies?
Posted by: mjs | June 18, 2009 4:50 PM
tsg: The form: suggesting that the subject was at fault for the actions it was subjected to. The content: you can figure that part out. Are the two cases noted here (rape and PETA) equal in terms of content? No, but I believe that the ruse of suggesting the "victim" is responsible is used in both situations.
++++
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 18, 2009 4:51 PM
At the risk of sounding slightly less than the virile, take-charge, grab-the-world-and-have-my-way-with-it, Adonis-esque model of masculine perfection most of you assume me to be, I must admit to a certain sensitivity when it comes to killing insects or other pests: namely that I avoid killing them for merely being annoying. I shoo flies, relocate spiders, and gently flick beetles, lacewings, caterpillars when they invade my personal space. Insects set upon consuming me in whole or in part are a different story, but it makes me uncomfortable to smoosh a bug just because I don't like the buzz of its wings.
Other than that, I'm a total stud-muffin.
Posted by: DGKnipfer | June 18, 2009 4:52 PM
MJS,
Because I expected an answer exactly like the head in your ass answer you gave in #106. Thus it was a rhetorical question. And I did not tell you to "fuck off", I very clearly told you to "go fuck yourself." Now go fuck yourself you self righteous asshat.
Posted by: Far | June 18, 2009 4:55 PM
At least the fly found peace on Twitter! http://twitter.com/aflyobamakilled
Posted by: Joe Bleau | June 18, 2009 4:55 PM
Wow. Just... Wow.
mjs, I don't think that I have ever witnessed a more blatant, awkward, and dishonest attempt to drag rape into a conversation in order to rhetorically bludgeon someone with whom you disagree.
Simply revolting.
Posted by: damnedyankee | June 18, 2009 4:57 PM
My favorite PETA moment: Scottish kids pelt PETA protesters with milk. The spokesman for the group trying to put a brave face on the spectacle is particularly funny.
Posted by: mjs | June 18, 2009 4:58 PM
DGKnipher: apparently my analogy has been voted off the island. Good luck with the anger thing.
++++
Posted by: tsg | June 18, 2009 4:59 PM
Unless you are suggesting that it is unreasonable to ask an animal rights advocacy group what their opinion is on animal rights, then I am clueless what you are going on about (and half expect you're going to blame me for that). And if you are I can only reiterate my first response: "er, what?"
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 18, 2009 5:02 PM
Hold on: having read through the comments, people are actually criticising PETA for their reaction to this?
Here’s a parsing for you: “Hi. We’ve been contacted numerous times about this non-event, and since you won’t leave us alone until we say something, how about this? We’d rather the president didn’t kill the fly, but come the fuck on: we’ve got people in furs to throw blood on. Oh, and we’ll send him this gewgaw, because some people use them. Happy now?”
PETA’s bugfuck insane in so many other respects, but dismissing this reasoned, measured response because of their other crazy actually does constitute an ad hominem, despite the term’s overuse around here by those sensitive to four letters.
Posted by: DGKnipfer | June 18, 2009 5:08 PM
MSJ,
I've known way too many victims of rape and molestation to ever let a sanctimonious fuckwit like you off the hook. PeTA is not now, nor has it ever been a victim of anything. And FUCKIN spell my name right if you’re going to discus my anger issues, dumbass.
Posted by: mjs | June 18, 2009 5:12 PM
tsg: it's a minor point--I did not intend to conflate rape with what occurred (I know, you didn't mention that). I thought I was making a connection that had some validity, but that "connection" having now been field tested I am inclined to retire it. And thank you for not cussing or bullying or basically letting your ID go all monkeyshine on your responses--I appreciate that.
++++
Posted by: CalGeorge | June 18, 2009 5:13 PM
Newkirk:
"It’s a criminal action now in over a dozen states to videotape or audiotape inside an animal industry, which is just extraordinary protection for one particularly section of society’s pursuits. It also makes it a federal crime to remove documents, for example, even if those documents show wrong-doing on the part of the business. You can’t even Xerox them and take them out to give to a reporter. That’s a federal crime, now, in over twelve states. It’s all designed so that you can’t get the goods on an industry that is hurting animals in violation of the law, and to make that information public without facing a jail sentence and a hefty fine."
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Ingrid_Newkirk%2C_co-founder_of_PETA%2C_on_animal_rights_and_the_film_about_her_life
Who among you will be rooting for the animal abusers when a PETA activist has to go to court to face charges for illegally exposing some horrible animal cruelty?
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | June 18, 2009 5:17 PM
Brownian:
I respectfully disagree. Yes, folks were begging them for a quote, and yes, their criticism was fairly mild, but even so, they criticized the president for swatting a fly!
I think it's really something like the opposite of ad hominem: Their response only seems "reasoned [and] measured" in light of "their other crazy." Any organization not already considered "bugfuck insane" would instantly gain that reputation for such a statement.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 18, 2009 5:25 PM
Sorry Bill, but any animal rights organisation would have to issue at least some form of criticism about the even when asked, and unless you can think of a milder one, I think they went with the softest criticism possible.
What else can they say? "Yeah, fucking flies, kill all the sumbitches! And remember, meat is murder!"
Posted by: Scrabcake | June 18, 2009 5:41 PM
RE: #124,
Actually, I will be.
Being a whistleblower is different than breaking into a facility, taking their property and putting it in the public. This is the same whether the material is xeroxed or not. This is stealing and trespassing whether the documents expose wrongdoing or not. What you're saying here is "the ends justify the means". If you agree with that statement, Where does it stop? Do you think it should be legal to break into a business or to be employed with them and steal their papers?
Regarding Ingrid Newkirk, she's absolutely crazy. Go and read her wikipedia page. Listen to her interviewed on the radio. She strikes me as a woman with a really skewed sense of reality and a flair for melodrama, which she will happily create if she can't find any to latch onto.
Agreed. People should be kind to animals. People should have respect for them and provide them with good living conditions if they are in captivity. But there are people suffering, too, and asked to pick between the suffering person and the suffering animal, the suffering person will win every time. The animal will just have to be respectfully experimented on.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 18, 2009 5:44 PM
If you'd met much of my family, you'd be much less inclined to pull out all the stops to save human lives.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | June 18, 2009 5:49 PM
Brownian:
Well, they could have said, "We're really not much bothered about people swatting flies; want to chat about slaughterhouse conditions instead?"
That would be a "reasoned, measured" response. I think it's precisely PeTA's apparent inability to draw the kinds of distinctions most of us do between (for example) abusive treatment of circus elephants on the one hand and swatting flies on the other hand that makes folks think PeTA's insane, and inspires satire like the PeTP parody mentioned upthread.
A truly "reasoned, measured" advocacy for animal rights might still draw sharp disagreement, but it wouldn't generate the kind of scorn you often see for PeTA. Average thinking, compassionate people can see a difference between kittens and houseflies (not to mention the "dignity" of already dead fish!), and it baffles them that PeTA doesn't seem to be able to.
BTW, did the ASPCA have anything to say about this fly-icide? No. Did anyone ask them about it? No... because they have not carefully and deliberately positioned themselves as the sort of organization that can be counted on to give good copy on even the silliest things. PeTA got asked this crazy question because that's who they want to be, and under the circumstances, I don't give them any credit for giving a relatively (that being the operative word) non-crazy answer.
Posted by: urdsama | June 18, 2009 6:01 PM
Slow news day?
Great FSM....
Posted by: BigMKnows | June 18, 2009 6:02 PM
PETA would be respected if they stuck to serious, mainstream issues, but they always pull stunts like this which just marginalizes them. The sad part is they think they're helping they're cause, when they're really not.
Posted by: Anton Mates | June 18, 2009 6:03 PM
And at least in the Theravada tradition, Gautama Buddha sanctioned meat-eating (though he thought a monk shouldn't eat meat from animals slaughtered specifically to feed him), and his last meal was pork.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 18, 2009 6:05 PM
Okay, I see what you're saying, Bill. But can we invoke the Overton window here? And do average people see the difference between flies and kittens? (Was Cheyenne Cherry average?) And what exactly is the difference between flies and kittens, anyway?
I don't personally think it's nuts to suggest there's value in moving from a category-based concept of non-human rights (these things are okay to kill, whatever the circumstance) to a utilitarian-based one (it's okay to kill some things under some circumstances--flies landing on your food, for instance), which is why, as I've already noted, I avoid killing things (particularly those with nervous systems of some sort) for reasons short of personal safety, health, food, clothing, or shelter as much as possible. And I don't consider myself an advocate for animal rights. Perhaps I'm not so moderate after all.
Posted by: Tom (UK) | June 18, 2009 6:20 PM
Compassion for non-humans? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
They'll be suggesting the vote for women next! Or rights for brown people. How ridiculous!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Posted by: Tom (UK) | June 18, 2009 6:22 PM
Compassion for non-humans? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
They'll be suggesting the vote for women next! Or rights for brown people. How ridiculous!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Posted by: whitebird | June 18, 2009 6:24 PM
Bill @ 112: "Sheesh! Is there some corollary to Godwin's Law about going for stupid rape analogies?"
I was thinking the EXACT same thing when I saw @ 102.
Posted by: Stardrake
|
June 18, 2009 6:32 PM
CalGeorge @124:
"That’s a federal crime, now, in over twelve states."
Erm--if it's a crime in only 12 states, it is NOT a Federal crime!
And here I thought these people employed lawyers....
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 18, 2009 6:33 PM
I avoid killing things (particularly those with nervous systems of some sort)
why.
It can't be an issue of pain, as it's easy enough to kill things with nervous systems without them feeling pain.
However, amongst all the ridiculous PETA debate, only a couple of people managed to notice the really interesting thing:
Obama cleaned up the fly himself. IOW, he took personal responsibility for his own actions.
HOW FUCKING DIFFERENT IS THAT FROM BUSH??!!
That's the real story here.
fuck PETA.
Posted by: James F | June 18, 2009 6:34 PM
Don't tell PETA about Drosophila research.
Posted by: uncle frogy | June 18, 2009 6:53 PM
I like using the live catch mouse traps (http://www.petacatalog.org/prodinfo.asp?number=HP200)
it is much easier to feed the live mice to my snake, she does not like dead food.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 18, 2009 6:59 PM
it is much easier to feed the live mice to my snake, she does not like dead food.
what?
you mean you haven't converted your snake to veganism?
you horrible, horrible ogre!
:P
Posted by: Marc Abian | June 18, 2009 7:17 PM
Ever turn that firey comic talent towards people making strawman arguments?
Posted by: Walton | June 18, 2009 7:22 PM
Oh, can we all please stop being fucking ridiculous?
Posted by: Michael the little boot | June 18, 2009 7:27 PM
So, if something is a) exceedingly small compared with us and b) a pest, it can be killed simply for those reasons, and no others? Interesting. I guess it's a good thing none of the other animals which possibly find us annoying are significantly larger than humans. Or maybe they just define "pest" differently?
I mean, come on. PETA is ridiculous, I agree. But it's also ridiculous to defend killing another animal by saying "it was only a fly." We're all "only humans" anyway!
Plus, people annoy me all the time, and I've yet to murder one. Good thing there's probably no God! I bet we'd ALL do a good job annoying him. In fact, isn't that why so many of us disagree with the Bible? God seems to swat a lot of humans in that book, with about as much justification as the President had in killing the fly.
Posted by: rohit | June 18, 2009 7:30 PM
Here's an update ( especially for those of you who are blowing PETA's statement out of proportion ) :
Maybe we can all take a deep breath now and get on with our lives?
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | June 18, 2009 7:34 PM
Mmmmm. Buddha Bar-B-Q Wonder if he used sauce, or rub?
Posted by: Joao | June 18, 2009 7:39 PM
PZ,
being considerably tired of your constant rants against PETA, I wonder if you had a chance to see this video in which Dawkins interviews Peter Singer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYYNY2oKVWU
Dawkins starts by expressing his opinion that Peter Singer has one of the "most logically thought out ethical positions", with which I fully agree.
Now, PETA certainly can not claim to share the the same soundness of ideology, but both the organization and Peter Singer can fairly be praised for not avoiding important points on the debate about animal rights, both in the food and in the research industries.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | June 18, 2009 7:39 PM
Any PR conscious organization would have simply say (in the abstract) "X says to president what X has been saying all along." If asked about flies, reiterate position on animal testing. If asked what flies have to do with animal testing, reiterate position on animal testing.
Posted by: Michael the little boot | June 18, 2009 7:39 PM
And, yes, I take antibiotics. I also acknowledge we ALL kill to live, veggies and meaties alike. This is no simple world. But I think it's a more mature person who refrains from killing when it's unnecessary.
Posted by: Joao | June 18, 2009 7:42 PM
PZ,
being considerably tired of your constant rants against PETA, I wonder if you had a chance to see this video in which Dawkins interviews Peter Singer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYYNY2oKVWU
Dawkins starts by expressing his opinion that Peter Singer has one of the "most logically thought out ethical positions", with which I fully agree.
Now, PETA certainly can not claim to share the the same soundness of ideology, but both the organization and Peter Singer can fairly be praised for not avoiding important points on the debate about animal rights, both in the food and in the research industries.
Posted by: DavidCOG
|
June 18, 2009 7:48 PM
Thanks, CalGeorge - I'll be using that myself in the future, if you don't mind.
It's really puzzling, the Pavlovian reaction of shrieking that the mere mention of PETA produces in Americans. They're well-meaning and do a *lot* of good. Disappointing to see PZ wasting his time knocking them - again.
Posted by: John Morales | June 18, 2009 8:14 PM
PETA apologists: why are you surprised that an organisation linked to terrorism is dissed?
Posted by: James F | June 18, 2009 8:31 PM
"They're probably watching me. Well, let them. Let them see what kind of a person I am. I'm not even gonna swat that fly. I hope they are watching. They'll see. They'll see and they'll know and they'll say, 'Why, she wouldn't even harm a fly.'"
Posted by: John C. Snider | June 19, 2009 8:01 AM
Yes, but can he duck a shoe?
Posted by: Marc Abian | June 19, 2009 8:23 AM
I don't think anyone's surprised by the unfounded criticism, they're just pointing out that PETA isn't actually outraged.
Posted by: sublunary | June 19, 2009 10:43 AM
Comment 151 says "It's really puzzling, the Pavlovian reaction of shrieking that the mere mention of PETA produces in Americans. They're well-meaning and do a *lot* of good. Disappointing to see PZ wasting his time knocking them - again."
I'm just picking this comment out of several examples up there. In spite of the little good PETA may do and the much ridiculousness they do it with, there is one thing I think everyone who feels sympathetic to PETA needs to know about:
They kill a huge number of animals at their shelters!
From the linked blog entry (which broke my heart the first time I read it): "In 2008, PETA's shelter in Norfolk, Virginia took possession of 2,216 dogs, cats, and other “companion animals” and killed all but 7 of them -- a 95.8 percent kill rate once the tranfers are accounted for."
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 19, 2009 12:00 PM
You know what, Ichy? I think it comes mostly from a desire to not become desensitised. If the time ever comes when I feel tempted to spit on my hands, hoist the blag flag, and start slitting throats, I don't want it to be easy. (Probably not a good reason. But then again, I do a lot of weird things for spurious or odd reasons. Like apple seeds. I used to eat apple cores to avoid having to find garbage cans to toss them in, and so I'd swallow the seeds. But I'd tell people I ate them to build up a tolerance to cyanide on the assumption that any future wife of mine would be tempted at some point to try to do me in.)
Exactly. I was telling a friend about this last night and was surprised that the video version he'd seen left this part out. Awesome.
And Biden still hasn't shot anybody in the face. I'll take Antichrist Obama over that malicious gang of man-sized gremlins that infested the White House over the last few years any day.
Posted by: amphiox | June 19, 2009 1:09 PM
Thoughts:
1. "Reasoned" and "measured" would have been not to comment at all. The very fact that PETA was actually asked to comment, and then chose to actually comment, is what is ridiculous here.
2. Obama gave fairer warning to the fly than Bush gave to Iraq.
3. What would Clinton and Gore have done with the fly?
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 19, 2009 1:16 PM
Oh, can we all please stop being fucking ridiculous? - Walton
Set an example, Walton. Set an example.
Posted by: Holydust | June 19, 2009 3:01 PM
CalGeorge:
www.petakillsanimals.org
They've killed more animals than they've rescued. FACT.
Posted by: Holydust | June 19, 2009 3:08 PM
Whoops. That's petakillsanimals.com, by the way. Did I mention the kill/rescue ratio for 2008 was 7 out of 2216, and that they have actually taken away someone's seeing-eye dog and had him euthanized?
Posted by: Michael the little boot | June 19, 2009 4:40 PM
amphiox @158,
"Obama gave fairer warning to the fly than Bush gave to Iraq."
Um...flies speak English? I was not aware!
Posted by: Rex | June 19, 2009 6:32 PM
PETA == People Eating Tasty Animals
There. I said it.
Posted by: woozy | June 19, 2009 9:10 PM
but I'm still waiting for either an interesting or somewhat persuasive argument against our position
Welp, here goes woozy, the eternal niave walking right into a sucker's game...
Let me start by saying upfront, I probably don't really know what precisely you think the issue is or what exactly defines an "accomidist" so I'm just going to address the the hot button phrases of "Can an evolutionist by a theist" and "Science and Faith are incompatiable world views". If the real issue is "gee, you ornery meanies really need to bend over backwards not to scare the precious wittle godlings.." well,.... screw that.
The fundamental objection I have to "your position" is simply that science is not a world-view, philosophy or opinion. It is an objective and deductive .... well, you all know what it is, so I don't have to define it, but basically it is a body of knowledge and facts about the physical world. As it is not a religion it effects and pertains to every-one and not just the scientists. In fact, it's the idiots and non-scientists and dullards, I'm concerned about.
An "evolutionist" is nothing more or less than some-one who believes evolution happens/ed. They don't have to understand it, be correct about it, or believe the fact that "we came from fish" has any pertainent "meaning". An "evolutionist" in and of itself is now more a world view than being a "blue-skyist".
Of course one can make science, or more narrowly evolution, one's own world-view and that's a damned fine path to take, in my opinion. Perhaps (or perhaps not, what the fuck do I care) such a world view is incompatible with religion. To an individual, a "world-view" isn't pertainent to anything but itself. Science is pertainent to everyone, even those with incompatiable world-views, because it's the way the world is.
I guess what it comes down to to me, is discussing evolution as a "world view" makes it seem as though it is a personal choice and matter of opinion (which the creationist would love to have everyone believe). If I were a "blue-skyist" and have the incompatible world-view that I can change reality by meditating... well, that's really my problem and the incompatible world-view is my choice. What concerns me that I don't have a choice in is whether the sky is or is not, in fact, blue.
Well... that's my response to the challenge. I'm not really wedded to it. And maybe I completely missed the point as to what anti-accomedationist position actually is. Oh, well.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | June 20, 2009 5:09 AM
Regarding the fly catching with chopsticks debate, I'm with Konata on that one.
Also, the people who think PETA's reaction was not insane (even if lighthearted for their standards) need to see a qualified health-care professional.
Posted by: astrounit | June 20, 2009 6:13 AM
Boiled down: PETA "ethics" consists basically of a revulsion or squeamishness over the existence of suffering and death: especially if they see it or are made aware of it. They're "idealists" who have a view of the world in which all organisms can live out their lives in harmony without any of them getting hurt.
And the lion will lie down with the lamb...and all the bunnies and birdies and bambis will live happily ever after, romping and playing and spronking in the forest, just like the old Disney cartoons promise.
Obama slapping that fly senseless on camera: Kick Ass Mr. President! Well done! And picking up after yourself: class act!
Oh, and Bren (#7 &11) and Rev (#12), nope, it is NOT true: Bush "dodged" a shoe that would have missed if he hadn't move at all. It was thrown WAY high and outside the box, and would be considered a wild pitch. Reaction time? "Like a pro"? He was also way too late in the duck. The shoe was high and outside right over his right shoulder just as he began to "dodge it". The best that might be said for his reaction is that he managed to dodge in the right direction.
To be fair, he didn't know what the heck that thing was that had been lobbed at him. And he reacted INVOLUNTARILY under the circumstances much like anybody would have if placed in his shoes. There was no higher-function skill in it at all...just "instinct".
Posted by: woozy | June 20, 2009 4:24 PM
Boiled down: PETA "ethics" consists basically of a revulsion or squeamishness over the existence of suffering and death: especially if they see it or are made aware of it.
Oh, this is SOOO true.
They're "idealists" who have a view of the world in which all organisms can live out their lives in harmony without any of them getting hurt. And the lion will lie down with the lamb...and all the bunnies and birdies and bambis will live happily ever after
Actually, in my opinion, their philosophy is worse. They know lions will eat bambies and overpopulation of deer will lead to starvation and disease and invasive species on isolated islands will destroy eco-systems. They simply accept that as "out of their hands". They truly believe a "good act" (such as ending pest abatement programs in environmentally sensitive areas) is utterly not responsible for any resulting problems (such as economic collapse and extinction of many native plants and animals), and that "good intentions" should trump all else.
Basically, PETA acts globally and thinks locally. The means justify the ends.