Peta @ MindSay 
animal rights
The animal rights group PETA thinks enough is enough. Instead of using cows for the milk that makes ice cream, the group is urging Ben & Jerry’s to use nursing moms for milk … really. According to an article sent to us by blueeyedtawni : “People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is asking the ice cream maker to begin using breast milk in its products instead of cow's milk, saying it would reduce the suffering of cows and calves and give ice cream lovers a healthier product.
The idea got a cool reception Thursday from Ben & Jerry's officials, the company's customers and even La Leche League International, the world's oldest breast-feeding support organization, which promotes the practice — for babies, anyway …
…Ashley Byrne, a campaign coordinator for PETA, acknowledged the implausibility of substituting breast milk for cow's milk, but said it's no stranger than humans consuming the milk of another species.”
Implausible is right. According to the article, it takes 1 and a half gallons of milk to make one gallon of ice cream. The ethical treatment of animals is generally a good cause, but, proposing silly moves that obviously won’t happen just makes PETA look like it isn’t a serious organization.
Anyway the cunts over at PeTa decided this was just the horrific type of incident that would be great to use in an ad:
Just for their douchebaggery I am going to put on some leather pants, alligator shoes, a fur coat and go eat a big plate of veal stuffed with chicken.
A writer by the name of Peter Singer makes the following proposition: ‘speciesism’, so to speak, is no different than racism – as the former is a belief that claims that those of us belonging to a certain species, just like those of us belonging to a certain race in the latter ideology, are superior or more important than those belonging to a different species or race.
I contend that there is a major flaw with this argument, for, the two are not the same: the belief in superiority of races is, for all intents and purposes, unfounded. The belief in superiority of certain animal species is not.
After all, the American civil rights movement would have been a sham if those equal rights were not inherently deserved. Most of us believe that race separates us no more significantly than by appearance, and in some cases, culture and language (though it should be noted that, while they may often seem to correspond, they are actually quite irrelevant to race itself) – therefore, the concept of all races deserving equal rights is not a difficult one to grasp. On the other hand, other animals are, indeed, quite obviously inferior to humans. How inferior, exactly, depends on the animal, but the point remains: different races deserve and require equal rights; but it is neither necessary, justifiable, nor feasible that animals should receive equal rights to humans.
Should inferiority infer the stripping of all rights whatsoever? To me this question is far more important, and for the moment allows us to escape from Singer’s extreme theoreticals to the relatively more conventional beliefs that drive animal rights activism.
Personally, I am against cruelty to animals, but I look at it from a somewhat different perspective: I believe allowing or encouraging acts of cruelty against animals leads to a society that thrives on, well, cruelty. It seems that many of those who commit terrible crimes against other human beings have often committed similar acts against animals earlier on in life, and even if this is not actually the case, it is intuitive that a link would be present: after all, cruelty is cruelty, and a general disregard for a living being or delight in its pain seems quite easily transferable to other humans. I believe that those who commit such acts against animals need to receive some sort of punishment, simply to reflect how society views such acts, and to reflect the danger that such a person poses to the rest of society until they receive some form of rehabilitation. Therefore, my reason for opposing cruelty to animals is simply for the sake of human society, and the actual rights of the animals in question are irrelevant to my perspective.
Is my view flawed? I don’t believe so. I believe that we must put our own species first, simply because it is impossible not to do so without disadvantaging ourselves. This is not just about making a decision to no longer eat meat – how could we fight parasites, or seek medical research, if other species’ welfare was to be considered as important or important enough to be relevant? Yes, it is true that even the most extreme animal rights activist probably has little interest in the protection of protozoa, but these too are living creatures, just smaller and less complex than other animals, who in turn are smaller and less complex than us. It is hypocritical to clamour only for the rights of mammals and not insects, or indeed the animal kingdom as a whole, because doing so is little more than ‘speciesism’ at a broader level.
So, how do we measure a species’ importance, and rights? I believe that the only logical answer must be to realise that the human animal is the only one that deserves ‘rights’ from our (human) society: not necessarily because of innate superiority even, but simply because this is the species that we are a part of, to which we belong – a discrimination that, unlike racism, is quite relevant and, indeed, necessary.
The often controversial animal rights group PETA is at it again, this time using movie star Eva Mendes nude in a series of new ads that protest fur coats. Eva's thoughts on the issue can be found in a Q&A with PETA, but the real question here is do ads like this cross the line in raising awareness for their issue? We had second thoughts about publishing the picture, but PETA will be publishing it in plenty of magazines and newspapers in coming weeks, so we figured we might as well show what we're talking about here. Plus, Eva is incredibly hot
Showing 1 - 5. [ Next ]