I have a question. What are you trying to make? What
world are you dreaming of? One that is natural? If so,
then what isn't natural about what man has done?
Natural is "something present in or produced by
nature: a natural pearl". The nature of man is
invention. His invention was the environment known as
civilization. A second definition of natural: "Of,
relating to, or concerning nature: a natural
environment." On to my second point: what's the
firing of a few neurons that signal "discomfort" to
the animal's brain compared to the destruction of the
lives of, the possible creations of, and the possible
children of various people? In fact, what is the
motivation to save animals that run entirely on
instinct and never reach a point of self awareness?
Why save one life if it means killing thousands? If
you had to kill one person to save a million, would
you? Now replace man with chimpanzee. Does your answer
change? Why? A human feels pain, feels discomfort, he
suffers, he bleeds, he dies. His DNA is, what, 97% the
same as the chimpanzee, what makes the chimp better? I
doubt it's animals you love, I think it's people you hate.
Their response:
Thank you for contacting PETA with your concerns about animal rights advocacy.
Animals can feel pain, suffer, and have an interest in leading their own lives, just like humans, therefore they deserve to have their best interests taken into consideration. The very heart of the ethic that underlies and informs all of PETA’s actions is the right of all beings—human and other-than-human alike—to be secure from violation and harm.
Many of PETA’s employees work hard to help people in distress, volunteering in soup kitchens for the homeless and at local shelters with children. Others answer phones at our local public TV station or participate in local tree-plantings and street cleanups. As an organization, however, PETA focuses on alleviating the horrible suffering inflicted on billions of animals every day. For more information about PETA and its goals, see
http://www.PETA.org/about.
Fortunately, helping animals doesn’t mean harming people; rather it tends to improve the human condition as well. For example, as vegetarians, we advocate a nonviolent diet that, if followed by every human, would not only save billions of animals from torture and slaughter each year, but would also save humans from such meat-related illnesses as heart disease, cancer, and strokes, among many others.
In today’s world of virtually unlimited choices, our continued exploitation of animals is simply unacceptable. We can eat better, educate ourselves better, clothe ourselves better, and entertain ourselves better without torturing and killing animals. We have the power to spare animals excruciating pain by making better choices about the food we eat, the things we buy, and the activities we support.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to respond to your concerns. I hope that you find this information helpful.
Sincerely,
Lindsay Pollard-Post
Staff Writer
My rebuttal:
I doubt any front based on morality, as morality is an
irrelevant ideal. All humanand animal action is based
on the premise of gaining pleasure or avoiding or
allieviating displeasure. Morality is simply a way to
make sure more that the majority of humans are happy.
Now, your moral crusade to save the animals has a
variety of affect, namely, displeasure. Out side of
vegetarians, the idea of abolishing meat and animal
products is just taking out a large amount of
commodities, which may have some replacements, but
these are currently substandard. This means that if
you "save the animals", a majority of the population,
those that eat meat, those that wear animal skins,
those that use animal products, and those that hunt,
will be displeased, meaning your moral crusade isn't
really moral. But then again, you're also forgetting
that morality is still bullshit, and that humans have
constructed all deist beleifs, and all reasonings
behind morality and equal treatment. Animals, on the
other hand, simply seek survival, with a good deal
being cannibalistic. There are various species that
will hunt humans, and thusly, it means they're not
paying attention to these all-being "rights", so why
bother with this charade of correctness, and go back
to skinning, killing, and eating. By the way, you sure
took your time answering my email, and the answer
didn't make me want to join your side at all. If you
love humans so much, what about ALF?
Sorry if this is a long read, I just feel pretty strongly about their bullshit agenda. i was all for animals rights until I realized that there's no point in life besides enjoying yourself. You can sometimes enjoy it better without being moral, sometimes you can enjoy it being moral. Depends on the cards.