Can’t handle criticism, can’t take a joke, believes that effective rhetoric that counters their assertions should be silenced.
In short, PETA reveals itself as typical of progressive activists in 2023.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Ethics Alarms 
PETA long ago passed the point of being a self-parodying group of nincompoops. They can’t take a joke because they ARE the joke.
More segments of the Left are headed in the same direction as they become further unmoored from reality.
I’d respectfully submit that the “joke” is “how come fish can eat other fish but we can’t eat fish,” and that engaging with trolls like greg16676935420 is hardly the responsibility of even the world’s most ridiculous organizations.
Interesting comment.
Isn’t the “joke” also a completely fair question to PETA’s ridiculous post?
I would agree that Greg is trolling in this case, because the PETA statement technically does not imply what Greg is arguing. In other words, Greg is creating a straw man argument, and rebutting such challenges always requires a great deal more effort than the challenge itself, and most of the time, anyone reading the thread is not interested in well-reasoned defense and nuance.
Still, I will maintain that such a fatuous statement from PETA deserves ridicule. They should at least try to construe it as premise, premise, conclusion, or something like that. All they posted was a very flimsy premise, and I suppose they were leaving it to their followers to reach whatever conclusion they chose.
I think Greg does provide a direct rebuttal. If a fish’s life is as important as a human’s, how come we aren’t trying to save fish from other fish?
Death has been a part of nature almost exactly as long as life has, so either PETA is declaring war on death itself (which I would support completely) or PETA is saying that humans are not entitled to deal death to animals because humans are not part of the natural order, by virtue of either their self-awareness or their game-breaking level of intelligence. I wonder what PETA’s position would be if humans were obligate carnivores, who would die if they did not procure sustenance by consuming the flesh of beasts.
As it stands, PETA could easily borrow some ideas from vegetarian religions like certain sects of Buddhism. It’s not like “refusing to kill animals” hasn’t been done.
I think Greg’s argument is a strawman because he jumps to an extreme possible conclusion from PETA’s statement, which would be the banning of killing fish for food. There is room here (and PETA could easily utilize the motte-and-bailey fallacy with how open-ended their statement is) to say, “This means advocating much better treatment of animals, more ethical means of raising them, not over-producing them in a cramped environment, acting more sustainably, and certainly avoiding just trophy fishing.”
It may well be that PETA is advocating the banning of eating of fish, but again, they don’t explicitly state that, and if they had any cojones, instead of just blocking Greg, they could have retreated into the “we never meant that, you’re putting words in our mouth we never said.”
If PETA’s tweet “A fish’s life is just as valuable to them as your is to you” doesn’t mean “killing fish for food is unethical”, then it sounds like that implies “killing humans for food” is not considered unethical. That would make the tweet a rather pointless statement, if not completely vacuous. I am open to alternative normative statements that can be drawn from the tweet; I just haven’t thought of any yet.
EC,
If PETA’s tweet “A fish’s life is just as valuable to them as your is to you” doesn’t mean “killing fish for food is unethical”, then it sounds like that implies “killing humans for food” is not considered unethical.
I agree with you too much to mount much more of a defense for PETA, but let’s try this. To make the leap from “ethical to kill and eat fish” to “ethical to kill and eat humans” requires a separate assumption of equivalence in rights and dignity between the two. In other words, it is logically defensible to suggest that an equivalency of valuing one’s life covers a smaller set than would an equivalency of dignity or rights. The higher dignity of the human person would preclude the killing and eating of humans, but valuing one’s life might preclude, say, trophy hunting for both fish and humans.
Ultimately, I agree that PETA is making the claim that killing and eat fish is as morally reprehensible as killing and eating humans. But for the sake of being as generous to PETA as I can, I’m trying to find even the slightest wiggle room for them.
Of course, ultimately their original tweet was terrible, and their response to Greg’s challenge (and I do like Greg’s challenge, don’t get me wrong) was juvenile at best.
Ah, good point. That all makes sense to me. “Don’t kill animals frivolously” might not be what they mean, but it’s a valid, if generous, interpretation of what they’re saying.
PETA does in fact advocate for strict veganism. Their idea of “ethical” is to end all human “exploitation” of animals, including domestic uses such as milk, wool, or even keeping pets.
Their platform go so far as to advocate mass cullings of domestic livestock, because they’ve been selectively bred to depend on human care. They operate animal pounds too, and euthanize many if not most cats and dogs that come into their care, so they can’t be “exploited” by a loving forever family.
Their ideology is absolutist. When PETA says a fish’s life is just as important, that is their honest-to-god position in the matter. They are not advocating more responsible use of sealife by humans. They are advocating zero human consumption of seafood.
They post these hyperbolic statements to get publicity to push their extreme agenda. When confronted, they may retreat to the claim it is merely hyperbolic (these would score high on Jack’s unethical satire scale). Yet, they earnestly believe these bombastic claims are profound and persuasive. So when one demonstrates how absurd the claim is (and by extension, the underlying political agenda to eliminate all use of animals), they have no defense but to such down. They actually believe this stuff
You are right…PETA is not really a group of People pushing for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. They want all animals left completely untreated and untouched by people. The group wants all animal husbandry ended, all animal agriculture ended, all animal ownership ended, and (obviously) the consumption of animals as food ended.
Not only that, many of them would rather grab their phones and film cases of actual animal abuse (probably for their own gain) rather than stop it. They’re not nearly as ethical as they would have us believe.
Rich,
So based on that, and doing armchair quarterbacking, what would you think had Greg made the response, “I’ll bet all those cats and dogs you euthanized valued their lives as much as I do, too,” with a link to some information on PETA’s practices? Would that be stronger than the zinger he actually used?
Ryan Harkins wrote, “Still, I will maintain that such a fatuous statement from PETA deserves ridicule.”
Isn’t the mocking reply offered by Greg exactly the kind of in-your-face ridicule reply that PETA’s fatuous statement deserved? It was completely fair to point out how completely ridiculous the PETA statement was with the contemptuous ridicule from Greg. Call it tit-for-tat trolling with a strawman if you like, the ridiculously fatuous PETA statement was pure trolling that warranted mocking, contempt and ridicule, and the statement was not worthy of any kind of serious discussion. Trolling, like PETA’s, is specifically presented to get those kind of replies and it’s completely ridiculous to block someone that gives them the kind of reply they wanted; it’s a form of rhetorical entrapment.
Steve,
The problem with wrestling with pigs is that you’ll both get dirty, and the pig will like it?
How dare you rebut our witty, pithy rebuttal to all pro-animal-slaughter advocates!
And this is why it is crucial to form an epistomology that can critically evaluate claims like “a fish’s life is just as valuable to them as yours is to you” before sending it out to be mocked as it deserves. How do you evaluate that a fish values its life? Certainly, it has sensory perception and instincts that are geared toward self-preservation, but by what standard do you claim that fish have the capacity for such abstract reasoning? Do we see fish setting up governments that seek to limit fish killing? Do we see fish setting up religions that ponder what, if anything, might transpire after death? Do we see fish mourning their deceased (instead of picking their bones clean (or is that to be interpreted as respect for the dead, keeping the dead in existence by ingesting their remains?))?
And how much do I value my life? Do we understand comparative values, where I might even possibly value something greater than my own life, such as liberty and justice, or the lives of my children? Indeed, one could even argue that a fish values its own life more than I value mine because it has such limited understanding that all it grasps is self-preservation, not any higher calling.
Finally (for now), how does a fish valuing its own life have ethical bearing on how we treat fish, especially with the killing and consuming of fish? There is not a direct conclusion that this statement proposes. For me, I would take a fish valuing its own life as an occasion to give thanks for the sacrifice this fish has made for keeping me fed. But I would suppose that PETA is after the bulk farming of fish, or the killing and eating fish, something that requires a change on my behavior away from fish consumption. It seems PETA is angling for an emotional response — how would you feel if someone demanded to kill and eat you, so have some sympathy for the poor thing! — but I can have an emotional response to the chicken I’m about to behead, but I’ll still behead it and cook it for dinner.
It’s a legitimate question. If PETA can’t answer it, then what are they even doing? They have no excuse for not answering or at least linking to some FAQs. An ideological nonprofit can’t afford to declare philosophical bankruptcy.
Here, I’ll even help them out, because it’s so easy. “Fish don’t have a choice about eating fish, but humans do.” There, a valid answer. It doesn’t settle the argument, but it’s not stupid, either. That one’s free.
This year I’m going to start getting paid for my well of wisdom. (Not accepting eyeballs as payment–money only, Odin. What am I even supposed to do with an eyeball? Start a collection? No, thanks. If you need money, get a loan. Trading away your organs is a bit… short-sighted.)
Seafood restaurant battling with PETA:
https://www.distractify.com/p/peta-seafood-restaurant-billboard-feud
I know this is slightly off topic but their post forced me to ask. . .
What is PETA’s stance on wind turbines that seem to be killing whales and raptors?
Great question. And what about “survival of the fittest” and “only the strong survive” and the other basic tenets of Darwinian evolution (with which many PETA members agree)? If I kill an animal and eat it to survive, doesn’t that mean I was the stronger one?…more able to survive, and more advanced than the animal I killed? Am I not pushing the collective world a bit closer to Utopia by culling the weaker out?
Never mind that the salmon I caught is especially delicious when carved up, blackened, and served on a bed of rice pilaf with some fresh green beans on the side…
DISCLOSURE: I’m an organic Vegetable Rancher of (arguably) SOME REPUTE.
Q-How can you tell if someone’s vegan?
A-Don’t worry, they’ll tell you…
“PETA does in fact advocate for strict veganism.”
Yet do they wait for their vegetables/fruits to expire of natural causes and fall off the plant/tree/vine/shrub/bush?
Not exactly.
The Hempen Homespun crowd themselves pick/harvest (or have picked/harvested for them) produce at or near its peak of its existence, thus summarily ending its life when it’s in its everLUVin’ prime.
Any of them claiming that’s just fine because, you know, like plants are…welp…plants, ergo, lack intelligence (as we know it) and don’t feel pain, stress or loss, hasn’t read The Secret Life Of Plants or watched the BBC’s absolutely (IMO) fascinating and spectacularly filmed The Green Planet
Electrodes attached to cut lettuce leaves indicate are still alive when freshly cut, with all the normal functions (respiration and photosynthesis, if there’s light) and responding to stimuli…so there’s that…
Anywho, PETA explains this away by saying “heck, we must eat, and murdering plants is more acceptable than animals.
Their only real consistency? DONATE NOW
Hypocrites!