I got in an argument today about human rights vs. animal rights. I am just wondering about your thoughts? Was it right for PETA to rescue pets over people when the levees broke in New Orleans? Are animals more helpless than humans and therefor deserve more help from humans? Leave a comment! Because the more I thought about it the more unclear the problem became.
Peace!
15 comments:
I like the general idea of PETA, becuase really who can argue with protecting animal rights and insuring some sort of counterbalance between both corporations and really many of our own personal practices (be they out of willing disregard or simple ignorance). I don't agree with everything they do, or the ways they do it, but I like that they exist in society.
With that said if PETA really did resuce animals over people when the levees broke in New Orleans (I say if only because I haven't heard about it until now) then that would really bother me.
I suppose the main reason is that to me (a human) for someone to save a dog over a person really just seems like a cheap political stunt which possibly cost people their lives. Think about it this way, if an average person had refused to help someone who was drowning because they had to save their cat (or dog, or whatever) we would be disguted (or at least I would, I suppose I can't speak for everyone), and to me, much in the same way we want to hold corporations accountable to a sense of morality, the same needs to be true of interest groups.
I agree with Jason that it is good that they exist and it's nice to know that people really care for animals.
However, if we look at PETA and it's practices, it really should qualify as a terrorist organization instead of organizations like Hezbollah. Especially in the case of natural disasters. Maybe that's just me though?
My Opinion is that the Animal cruelty and the degradation of habitat and the environment are linked to the same economic practices that lead to the oppression of human beings. I feel like we are working for the same movement but by lecturing people who eat meat you alienate yourself and your movement. It just seems so elitist.
As long as people are enslaved or mistreated in any way, that is what I will spend my life trying to fix.
Personally. Does that mean I think the animal rights cause is not worth fighting? Absolutely not. But while children are starving to death and people are prisoners in their own homes by abusive partners (I say that instead of wives/husbands because of the rate of domestic abuse in same-sex couples, and you don't have to be married to be abused) I know where my energy will go.
Again, that's just me. I can't fight the world.
Naomi said it very well. I think in this day and age, we can work towards all forms of progress. However, I'll never stand up for PETA. There are plenty of other animal rights organizations that AREN'T absolutely insane.PETA is just the most well known, mainly do to their extreme actions that many times, like Angel said, qualify as terrorism. I really hate using that word, it's so broadly defined. But when PETA breaks into zoos and violates property rights so flameboyany, I really can't sympathize with their organization.I guess I just wish the amimal rights movement had a different face, and a more intelligent approach to solving the issue.
As an animal rights activist, I get this a lot. How I usually deal with it is by saying that there are people who help animals and people who help people, and there's nothing wrong with that as long as people are making a difference and doing what they love.
That said, I've become pretty involved with human rights because of my involvement with animal rights. I always identified with animals more, so I stuck to them... but after seeing some of the more grotesque pictures (especially from Darfur) I saw that we are all animals, essentially. We all need, and deserve, help.
-katie-
I believe that all humans, animals, and plants should have equal rights. It is no crime to save a dog over a human in the instance of New Orleans. Sounds crazy to most, but I don't hold the life of a tree or ant in and lesser light than that of my neighbor. I believe, to much disagreement from my peers, that humans are responsible for more destruction of natural environments and life (both human and animal) than any either creature on the face of this planet, and yet, we think we are better and more important. I am not impressed with that opinion.
What PETA did seems ignorant to some, but I think that it is the purpose of that particular organization to act in the best interest of ANIMALS (not people). It is the position of the US Government to hold responsibility for the well-being and safety of citizens in a natural disaster. If you want to be pissed at someone for dropping the ball, please aim your aggression at the party that should hold responsibility.
There's a story of a woman in New Orleans: she was found wandering in waist-deep water 2 weeks after the hurricane hit. When she was found, the rescuers asked "where were you? How did you survive?" In turn, she asked them "where was I!? Where were you?!?"
why should anyone be upset that PETA rescued animals over humans? their organization IS dedicated to animals.. and that's what their mission is: to help animals.
There are other organizations out there that are dedicated to helping humans. So we can't judge PETA and say that there are more important issues out there other than animal rights that need to be dealt with.
There are so many injustices in the world, and no individual should determine which is more important and should therefore receive more attention. So I think that it is good we have an organization like PETA in our society, even though they don't deliver their message in the best possible way.
So if you don't personally feel that animal rights is an important issue, then I don't think that you can say it should hold no importance worldwide.
Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!
Question for Vala Venus: From whence do rights originate. Seeing as from a completely natural perspective of the world, organisms are just a ridiculously complex series of chemical reactions, with the reactions being less complex in lower life forms than higher life forms, should we carry out your logic to its fullest extent and grant rights to even the simplest chemical reactions? Frankly, the concept of inherent rights fits only in a world view involving some divine origin for those rights. This was reflected in the language of the Declaration of Independence which stated something to the effect of "all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights...".
"Without God, without ought; God and enough."- Benjamin Franklin
I understand where you're coming from, but animals are more helpless then humans in many ways. To be honest I think human rights and animal rights should be at about the same level.
P.s:Not saying they should be held higher then humans.
If you think you are entitled to life more than a rodent, you've been conditioned exactly the way the true world order wants you to be - a completely soulless, nihilistic entity concerned about your pathetic bills and life. Call Peta and other organizations what you want, those people are doing something unlike most who supposedly "care" about something.
Open your eyes, you're connected to every living being here. You are NOT better. Your altered holy books and government are lying to you. You can rise above these thoughts.
Do you know if you're saving someone's faithful dog or a child rapist?
Since humans first started inventing things, we began to distance ourselves from the natural world. In essence, there are now two worlds on earth- the natural world and the world that we, as humans, have created. We, throughout history, have tried to distance ourselves from what we consider to be barbaric and animalistic. In so, we created a world where we use animals to our advantage. Today, in our world, it is easy to eat the food on our plate without knowing where it came from. A hamburger doesn't even begin to resemble a cow. We have essentially lost contact with our natural world, and it is now possible to spend our entire lives in manmade places, never experiencing the outdoors. Looking at the world like this, it is easy to understand why there are animal rights activists. One of the main basic points of their argument is that humans (gasp) may not be superior to the animals they relies on. This is a true statement, but some animal rights activists take a dangerous and hole ridden logical step further by claiming that ALL animals have certain unalienable rights that must be protected, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (my views on this were already said under rights exist for man only) This, of course, sounds great, until you realize that domesticated animals depend on us just as much as we depend on them. If all animals have the same rights as people, then pets and livestock, two types of domesticated animals that require our presence to survive, must be released. This gives us an unsolvable dilemma. Slavery and murder is wrong, but to release our animals would be genocide. Likewise, the owl that lives on our street regularly hunts, and kills, rodents. Don't these rodents deserve the right to live? Is the owl guilty of genocide? Should we execute the owl, like we would do with a human being? Of course, without predators committing genocide, the ecosystem would collapse, and there would be a massive die out. The animal rights movement is born of the unnatural world that we humans have created, one where we are disconnected from the fact that sometimes, for one animal to live, another must die. To give animals the same rights, and therefore responsibilities, as humans would be to throw the entire ecosystem out of balance. All life, as one person has already said, is interconnected, and we need to respect that system. We, as humans, have been given a great gift, and a heavy burden. We are able to eat almost anything in the world. While it is noble to say that it is wrong to eat another animal, not all animals are capable of being so picky. True salvation to animals, people will soon learn, will not come from the animal rights movement. It will come through conservationism and animal humane societies. If you care about animals, ignore PETA and its hopeless cause.
Which carry guns: animals/people? Start there.
Which carry guns - people/animals? Start there.
Post a Comment