Post by Mel Mel on Jan 27, 2007 2:31:30 GMT
This is an excellent rebuttal to an article against PETA that I found online. It is definately one of the best opinion articles on animal rights that I have ever heard.
anchorweb.org/content/view/1308/68/
A Direct Rebuttal
Written by Chena Immel
Tuesday, 23 January 2007
I recently found an article in an older Anchor that I feel needs a response, however late it may be. It’s called People for Extortion, Terror and Abuse, and it’s mainly aimed at PETA’s tactics and animal rights. The author Alex makes every usual claim, and even though there is more to my argument than I could fit in one submission, the rebuttal to a few certain points is long overdue.
First, you say you support animal rights and you don’t believe animals should be needlessly tortured, but scientists and consumers should be able to use them as they please. I must ask then, exactly what rights are you supporting, and since when is any kind of torture necessary, let alone morally justifiable?
You say we should fight for the proper treatment of animals but not their independence – how is that possible? How do you equate torture and exploitation with proper treatment?
You say we should work to “strengthen the bond between humans and animals,” but the only relationship you describe is complete human domination. I often hear this “I love animals, but –” routine, and it just seems like a desperate attempt to soften the argument so you don’t sound like a bad person. If you’re going to stand up for something, say what you mean.
You also make a comment about PETA’s founder being a hypocrite. That may be, because I think most people in our culture are hypocrites, myself included. After all, anyone against pollution who drives a car is a hypocrite. Should we all be ridiculed for supporting cleaner energy? My point is that, in our society, it’s very difficult for most people to live in absolute accordance with their ethical standards. The only way we’re going to change things is to fight for that change, meanwhile living, yes, somewhat imperfectly and hypocritically until we have created another viable option. Whether or not Ingrid Newirk is perfect doesn’t affect the issue of animal rights itself, and focusing on her faults to discount the validity of the argument is nothing more than argumentum ad hominem – look it up.
As for your food chain reference, there was no epic battle where we “fought our way to the top” and “thusly have the right to eat animals.” Humans have a way of drawing all their diagrams so that we stand above everything else, as if that manipulation proves we’re more important. This is reminiscent of the days when we drew the sun revolving around the earth. In reality, all life is interconnected; none are above or below, more important or less. In any case, whether you eat meat or not, there are cultures on this planet that show respect and thankfulness for what it provides instead of brutally, wastefully and self-righteously massacring their food. We could learn a thing or two from them.
I think many rights issues – animal and human – come down to one warped idea: that because someone is born a certain way (white, male, straight, human), they are ultimately superior and all other beings exist for their benefit and exploitation. Our history is proof of that. But Alice Walker said it best: The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for whites, or women created for men. No one has the right to force any other creature to suffer for his own benefit.
This brings me to the most disturbing part of your article. You say that PETA “uses very distasteful methods of getting their point across” by showing real-life photos of what goes on behind laboratory and slaughterhouse doors. I am stunned that it’s the photos you find so distasteful and not the actions of the people depicted in them. If what those photos capture is so “necessary” and justified, then why the opposition to seeing it?
On the other hand, if what you see is so sickening, why loose your venom on the people revealing the injustice and not the perpetrators of it? My guess is that you, like many people, find those photos horrible because they are actually horrible, but instead of questioning your lifestyle, you’d rather blame PETA for interrupting your blissful ignorance. No one should be expected to sit idly by when they have the chance to uncover and stop wrongdoing – how would we ever change anything?
As said Edmond Burke: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. It is the abuse that is repulsive, Alex, and the willful ignorance of it that is inexcusable, not the photos that expose it and not the fight to stop it. The ultimate responsibility for anything “distasteful” lies with the ones spilling the blood.
anchorweb.org/content/view/1308/68/
A Direct Rebuttal
Written by Chena Immel
Tuesday, 23 January 2007
I recently found an article in an older Anchor that I feel needs a response, however late it may be. It’s called People for Extortion, Terror and Abuse, and it’s mainly aimed at PETA’s tactics and animal rights. The author Alex makes every usual claim, and even though there is more to my argument than I could fit in one submission, the rebuttal to a few certain points is long overdue.
First, you say you support animal rights and you don’t believe animals should be needlessly tortured, but scientists and consumers should be able to use them as they please. I must ask then, exactly what rights are you supporting, and since when is any kind of torture necessary, let alone morally justifiable?
You say we should fight for the proper treatment of animals but not their independence – how is that possible? How do you equate torture and exploitation with proper treatment?
You say we should work to “strengthen the bond between humans and animals,” but the only relationship you describe is complete human domination. I often hear this “I love animals, but –” routine, and it just seems like a desperate attempt to soften the argument so you don’t sound like a bad person. If you’re going to stand up for something, say what you mean.
You also make a comment about PETA’s founder being a hypocrite. That may be, because I think most people in our culture are hypocrites, myself included. After all, anyone against pollution who drives a car is a hypocrite. Should we all be ridiculed for supporting cleaner energy? My point is that, in our society, it’s very difficult for most people to live in absolute accordance with their ethical standards. The only way we’re going to change things is to fight for that change, meanwhile living, yes, somewhat imperfectly and hypocritically until we have created another viable option. Whether or not Ingrid Newirk is perfect doesn’t affect the issue of animal rights itself, and focusing on her faults to discount the validity of the argument is nothing more than argumentum ad hominem – look it up.
As for your food chain reference, there was no epic battle where we “fought our way to the top” and “thusly have the right to eat animals.” Humans have a way of drawing all their diagrams so that we stand above everything else, as if that manipulation proves we’re more important. This is reminiscent of the days when we drew the sun revolving around the earth. In reality, all life is interconnected; none are above or below, more important or less. In any case, whether you eat meat or not, there are cultures on this planet that show respect and thankfulness for what it provides instead of brutally, wastefully and self-righteously massacring their food. We could learn a thing or two from them.
I think many rights issues – animal and human – come down to one warped idea: that because someone is born a certain way (white, male, straight, human), they are ultimately superior and all other beings exist for their benefit and exploitation. Our history is proof of that. But Alice Walker said it best: The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for whites, or women created for men. No one has the right to force any other creature to suffer for his own benefit.
This brings me to the most disturbing part of your article. You say that PETA “uses very distasteful methods of getting their point across” by showing real-life photos of what goes on behind laboratory and slaughterhouse doors. I am stunned that it’s the photos you find so distasteful and not the actions of the people depicted in them. If what those photos capture is so “necessary” and justified, then why the opposition to seeing it?
On the other hand, if what you see is so sickening, why loose your venom on the people revealing the injustice and not the perpetrators of it? My guess is that you, like many people, find those photos horrible because they are actually horrible, but instead of questioning your lifestyle, you’d rather blame PETA for interrupting your blissful ignorance. No one should be expected to sit idly by when they have the chance to uncover and stop wrongdoing – how would we ever change anything?
As said Edmond Burke: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. It is the abuse that is repulsive, Alex, and the willful ignorance of it that is inexcusable, not the photos that expose it and not the fight to stop it. The ultimate responsibility for anything “distasteful” lies with the ones spilling the blood.