Is This The Best Argument Against PETA? [Pic]

Submitted by: Nneri 4 years ago Science

The poster makes an excellent point.
There are 40 comments:
Male 766
As long as my foods and meds are safe I don`t much care. Ever eaten a live chicken? Of course not. You have to kill and cook it first. I don`t even care if you stack em 10 high as long as my chicken nuggets are SAFE for me and my children. They are food not pets. (chickens, not the children)
0
Reply
Male 294
I love animals and want what`s best for them whenever possible, but there`s a reason I`m not a member of peta.

If animals weren`t getting researched on either people would be or we wouldn`t be able to test, and while it`s easy to pretend animals think and feel like humans do they don`t really. If a bunch of mice who die in the thousands constantly, are sacrificed to ease the suffering of even just a couple people that`s a fair trade off imo. Animals, have a scope of reality far, far more limited than ours with extremely shallow thoughts and emotions.

Now, in reality everything on earth is a biological machine. Saying a mouse`s suffering is worth less than a human`s is completely subjective, just like if some being far more sentient than us existed it might view our understanding of suffering as limited in scope.

Maybe they`d be right. In reality we`re the most sentient, dominant beings on earth, so for now our needs matter most.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
Madest

I have never seen you post anything that suggests you have any idea of causality; many cases where you give cause to doubt, this page included.
0
Reply
Male 1,059
Yeah, that or this.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
The maker of the poster doesn`t understand the meaning of causality.
0
Reply
Male 598
notorious, i respect your opinion and insight into this, and understand your view, as i know it would be much harder and slower to do research without the aid of our animal testing programs.
But your comments just reaffirm that we as humans have the world at our disposal and we can either abuse and mistreat our responsibility or we can handle it with respect. Why is adding a few years to our life more important than tens, hundreds, or thousands of animals having to endure treatment and lives that you wouldnt wish on your own pet? It is only because we are selfish and because we are at the top of the food chain that we can get away with this. That still doesnt justify it or excuse our use of animals.
And your first arguement was that they wouldnt exist if it werent for testing, if you were wondering where i got the "you are acting like we are doing them a favor" part. im not sure what you were implying otherwise.
0
Reply
Male 151
@Macguffin

That`s unfortunate if that`s the case. For the company I work for, if they find out you`ve done anything that is even remotely considered inhumane, they`ll fire you on the spot. Massachussetts has a large number of biomedical research companies and they adhere to some extremely strict guidelines.
0
Reply
Male 151
@imnakdjumpme

At no point in time did I say we were doing animals a favor. That`s what you took because that`s what you wanted to see. I merely said that animal research, at least in the US, is generally as humane as anything can be. Here`s the truth of the matter. The reason why they conduct research on animals is because a.) the government won`t allow human testing until it`s gotten to a certain phase and b.) humans aren`t signing up for initial research. If you want the medicine and the benefits that they bring and you don`t want animals to be used for research, sign up for early testing. Until you`re ready to put your money where your mouth is, I would suggest you keep quiet.

And, last time I checked, animals weren`t at the top of the food chain. When they are, they can use us for experimentation.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
Got to say, I`m not against legitimate animal research per se (hey, if someone I love gets cancer, I want them to get the drugs they need), but I did work on a technical system for a biomedical research facility one time. Aside from the general bad karma of the place, they employed some of the least pleasant and most inhumane people it`s been my misfortune to provide consultancy to. I didn`t stay on the project for long.
0
Reply
Female 9,402
I say we test people who are serving life sentences or on the death penalty list, it`s not like they are going anywhere soon anyways.
0
Reply
Male 76
Well put Notorious, you`re not the only sane person around here.

Using animal testing to save and improve human lives is much needed. It may not be the prettiest subject around, but it is necessary. Sometimes sacrifices have to be made.
0
Reply
Male 598
Notorious, you make it sound like we are doing these animals a favor. just like factory farming for food, we create these animals for our own personal use, cage them in an unnatural habitat, feed them unnatural diets, make them endure all kinds of endless testing and abuse and inhibit them from living a natural life. You cannot tell me that their life is so great and that its okay because their natural habitat would have predators and sometimes the people testing on them dont abuse them too much. Being an experimental slave and living in a cage should be considered abuse to everyone
0
Reply
Male 151
Animal testing has been used for centuries upon centuries to help us understand how nature works and not just for the biomedical industry. Too many of the comments I see have very little to no understanding of how animal research is conducted. First of all, none of these animals would even exist if not for this research. I guess that you could say it`s better to not be born than to be bred for research, but to each their own. Second, these animals live a better life than you ever will. All of their needs are met, they`re given top shelf food (for them), fresh water, and clean cages. Third, the Animal Welfare Act exists in order to keep animals from suffering. On top of that, many research facilities create their own form of Animal Welfare that is even more stringent than the guidelines set up by the government. Fourth, and finally, there is definitely a lot of money to be made, but being as I work in animal research, many people do it to help other people.
0
Reply
Male 519
You don`t need to argue with PETA. They`re a bunch of whackos, terrorists, and hypocrites. If everyone would just ignore them, eventually they`d go away.
0
Reply
Male 598
We should abuse and kill all the animals we can if it means we live a few years longer, right?
Thats the message i get from this.
0
Reply
Male 658
Onoffonoffon, it`s none of them. The problems exist because we keep making NEW people.
0
Reply
Female 355
I love animals, but I loathe PETA and not just because of their obnoxious shock value tactics or their crazy ass claims of things like "eating sushi is like abusing women!".

The fact is they don`t care about animals. They euthanize a lot of adoptable pets within the first few days of receiving them and their adoption to euthanasia rate is deplorable in 2009 less then 1% of cats and dogs were adopted, the rest were euthanized.

Virginia even tried to revoke their licence as an animal shelter last year but due to a a legal technicality the shelter status was protected.
0
Reply
Male 5,413
Ha nice!
0
Reply
Male 2,553
>Groogle
True; however, neither does protesting against animal research by being on PETA`s side. Check up one how many animals PETA have taken into its care, and then look at how many of those animals weren`t simply executed.
0
Reply
Male 95
This is for biomedical research, which has insanely strict policies in place to see to the well-being of their animals. There are numerous systems in place to make sure animals within these programs do not suffer needlessly. With further development into the ability to do things on a cellular level, it further minimizes the need for live animals. There are procedures in place to make sure a would-be investigator isn`t doing something that has been done before, or something too similar. There are guidelines in place that dictate what is allowed, what isn`t, and if (a big "if") an exception can be made.

Check out the Animal Welfare Act, and proceed from there.

As for outside the biomedical research, it`s probably true that there is lots of needless suffering, alas.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
[quote]Extremists are so irritating.
Any extremists. Religious, political, atheistic.
Zealots = Suck[/quote]

[irony]That`s true. I hate them, I do: extremists. If it were up to me, I`d have them taken out and shot in front of their families as a lesson to the others to be more tolerant. [/irony]
0
Reply
Male 2,172
And by "our life expectancy" they mean people who pay lots of money to the pharmaceutical companies.

Those meds they produce after torturing millions of animals doesn`t come cheap.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
The biggest single difference in the longer average life expectancy we now enjoy, is that a higher percentage of us make it past childhood these days compared to 75-150 years ago. Once you make it out of that risky initial period, your life expectancy compared to an equivalent adult from an earlier period in history is pretty comparible*.








* Unless you live in Easterhouse in Glasgow and live on a died of heroin, fried Mars bars and violence.

0
Reply
Male 2,376
no actually its eating healthier, personal hygiene, oh and how about the fact we stopped eating lead..
animal research is more for drug company`s.. sure antibiotics are pretty cool. but there over use could also be the downfall of us, bacteria are getting used to this stuff because of its over use and now there using it wash down dinner..
i hate PETA as much as the next meat eater but that argument isn`t all that great, sorry
0
Reply
Male 135
As a person that has a working sense of reality.

PETA are nuts
0
Reply
Male 2,220
I guess this puts me in my own little Zealot clade :)
0
Reply
Male 2,220
Peta is misguided. Nature is awesome, but wicked cruel, so any anti cruelty argument is anti-nature in its way.

I agree with MacGuff though - this is fuzzy maths bs.

Anyway, with 6Billion rising, longer life expectancy isn`t a good thing.
0
Reply
Female 7,838
Bad argument. Most animals are treated in an inexcusable mannr for no other reason than profit.
0
Reply
Male 37,902

Extremists are so irritating.
Any extremists. Religious, political, atheistic.
Zealots = Suck
0
Reply
Male 6,737
Peta is a very misguided voice for a noble cause.
0
Reply
Female 1,743
Mmm, bacon.


That`s all I have to say.
0
Reply
Female 313
Old picture is old. Peta needs to burn.
0
Reply
Male 1,754
PETA is an organization that supports and has funded domestic terrorism. They`re a JOKE!
0
Reply
Male 37,902
0
Reply
Male 3,445
Hmm...lots of anti-PETA hate here today. As I`ve said many times, I`m a vegan who thinks PETA is a pretty poor voice for the lifestyle. They make us look like wackos instead of individuals who have looked at the issue intelligently from a lot of different angles.

Anyway, I live my life to cause the least harm possible, because that`s the moral thing to do. I realize I can`t eliminate every single source of cruelty in the world, but I also don`t have to buy deodorant or razor blades that were tested on animals either. To modify a well-known phrase, necessity is the mother of ethics.
0
Reply
Male 15,510
They ought to be trolling
0
Reply
Female 2,602
23.5 years longer than what? Our parents? Grandparents? The average life expectancy is ~79 right now (and nearer 50 in parts of Glasgow - seriously, look it up). So, hands up, whose parents or grandparents died at 54 (or 26 and a half if you`re Glaswegian)?

Whatever you think about the underlying message, this is Fuzzy Maths at its worst.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
This would work, and it is funny, but PeTA doesn`t care about people. This won`t affect PeTA at all.
0
Reply
Male 1,754
Wait, but Lassie has feelings! Urgsbjrdsdyjktdjutteswsggjjiolmnxdghyejk
0
Reply
Female 992
Link: Is This The Best Argument Against PETA? [Pic] [Rate Link] - The poster makes an excellent point.
0
Reply