Penn & Teller slagging off PETA

[Cristian]

Hey guys,

 

I found this link, let me know what you think. They heavily criticise PETA's work in a very one-sided disrespectful way.

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1913999390200944075&q=bullshit

 

The quality isn't great, the video is about 15 mins.

[robert]

I watched this on TV about a year ago. My friend showed it to me. If I remember correctly, it was pretty annoying and kinda sucked. They may have had some good points, but they didn't seem to be very respectful or even very nice. I'd say they are pretty lame.

 

-Rob

[Attila]

It sucks - total " bullshit" ...the fur coat was not necessary!

[artystik]

Very great points about medical research. If people aren't for having tests performed on animals for medical reasons, they should not use a drug that was derived from that specific research. On the flipside, they didn't say one word about the food industry, which has the greatest cruelty aimed toward the animal kingdom.

[Attila]

Very great points about medical research. If people aren't for having tests performed on animals for medical reasons, they should not use a drug that was derived from that specific research.

 

come on, wouldn't you? and another point: what if she had to take insulin before she became an animal rights activist?

[violet13]

When we type 'PETA kills animals' on search engine, we can find hundreds of article to criticize PETA but I wonder if these people had sense enough to stop and think.

These people need to criticize selfish money hungry lazy pet breeders who are contributing to horrible pet population explosion problems and need to think about ROOT OF PROBLEM instead of blame on PETA for putting unwanted surplus animals to sleep.

Puppy mill owners, back yard breeders, Cat Fancy, Dog Fancy, American Kennel Club are breeding millions of cats and dogs while millions of sheltered animals are waiting to be executed while other millions of starving homeless animals roaming on the street.

If animals were humanely euthanised in NC animal shelters, of course PETA never got involved in taking animals out of shelters and putting to sleep.

I saw horrible condition of animal shelters in state of NC on PETA website and I also read article written by president of PETA about why PETA got involved in taking out animals from NC animal shelters.

Am I only person who get so irritated by reading anti PETA articles to criticize this courageous animal rights organization without thinking deeply enough?

PETA and PCRM stood on what they know and believe when veganism was unpopular.

It is laughable for Center for Consumer Freedom to criticize PETA when Richard Berman is responsible for death of billions of animals by supporting restaurant owners.

http://www.consumerdeception.com/

[Attila]

When we type 'PETA kills animals' on search engine, we can find hundreds of article to criticize PETA but I wonder if these people had sense enough to stop and think.

These people need to criticize selfish money hungry lazy pet breeders who are contributing to horrible pet population explosion problems and need to think about ROOT OF PROBLEM instead of blame on PETA for putting unwanted surplus animals to sleep.

Puppy mill owners, back yard breeders, Cat Fancy, Dog Fancy, American Kennel Club are breeding millions of cats and dogs while millions of sheltered animals are waiting to be executed while other millions of starving homeless animals roaming on the street.

If animals were humanely euthanised in NC animal shelters, of course PETA never got involved in taking animals out of shelters and putting to sleep.

I saw horrible condition of animal shelters in state of NC on PETA website and I also read article written by president of PETA about why PETA got involved in taking out animals from NC animal shelters.

Am I only person who get so irritated by reading anti PETA articles to criticize this courageous animal rights organization without thinking deeply enough?

PETA and PCRM stood on what they know and believe when veganism was unpopular.

It is laughable for Center for Consumer Freedom to criticize PETA when Richard Berman is responsible for death of billions of animals by supporting restaurant owners.

http://www.consumerdeception.com/

 

 

I totally agree! The CCF just needs arguments against PeTA - pretty lame... People should start to think!

[artystik]

Very great points about medical research. If people aren't for having tests performed on animals for medical reasons, they should not use a drug that was derived from that specific research.

 

come on, wouldn't you? and another point: what if she had to take insulin before she became an animal rights activist?

I support animal research because it is beneficial toward the positive development of mankind. If animal research would be cut off, then we would not be as advanced medically as we are today. On the flipside, many of the diseases in our society are caused by eating animal or animal-based products. If society was more careful about the food industry's standards, then we would not have to create so many drugs because new disease would not manifest as rapidly. For example, cutting out steroids and antiobiotics which are added in meat. That would save millions of lives from illness...Peta has a good outlook, but they are too extreme. For example, if animal testing would have to be used toward the final cure for aids, most likely Peta would oppose the animals research and let the disease continue to kill people just to save some animals. Sometimes sacrifices have to be made for progress...

[Aaron]

That's not following for me. The animals are already dead. It's wasteful of resources to go redo the research. The ethical thing is to use the drugs or whatever and still oppose animal research.

[compassionategirl]

Sometimes sacrifices have to be made for progress...

With all due respect, that is easy for us to say when we arent the ones being sacrificed. And then of course there is the matter of degress. While it may arguably be more defensible to use animal testing for curing disease, animal testing so that Proctor and Gamble can maintain its market share in household detergents by coming up with a 17th "new scented" Tide "coldwater" is clearly less defensible. As is animal testing for cosmetics, etc,. etc. Testing taser guns on helpless, squeeling, terrified pigs is not my idea of progress, for example.

 

As far as the "medical research" is concerned, a truly civilized society would be investing resources into finding alternatives to animal research- not taking healthy, terrified animals who have absolutely no choice in the matter and infecting them with painful, crippling, fatal diseases in the "hopes" of finding a cure that will work on humans.

 

Animal experimentatiion is not as clear cut and necessary as the vivisection industry would have us believe.

 

CrispyQ had said that she was at the hospital once and saw a picture of some rabbits in research with a caption reading "volunteeers." This is the kind of disrespectful and callous mentality that is prevalant in the vivisection industry. Talk about an unethical and misleading poster. NO, they were NOT volunteers. They were victims - voiceless, silenced, helpless victims - of a society that thinks it has the right to do as it pleases to animals.

 

Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction: Ask vivisectors why they experiment on animals and they say because the animals are like us. Ask them why it is morally okay to experiment on animals and they say because the animals are not like us. - Professor Charles Magel.

 

Instead of giving into our speciest instincts of being in favour of testing that advances the well-being of humans, let us approach the vivisection industry with a more critical and suspicious perspective rather than taking for granted the assumption that animal testing is the only way.

Edited January 16, 2006 by compassionategirl

[compassionategirl]

The animals are already dead. It's wasteful of resources to go redo the research. The ethical thing is to use the drugs or whatever and still oppose animal research.

 

I agree with you Aaron.

[compassionategirl]

Very great points about medical research. If people aren't for having tests performed on animals for medical reasons, they should not use a drug that was derived from that specific research. On the flipside, they didn't say one word about the food industry, which has the greatest cruelty aimed toward the animal kingdom.

 

and that is exactly why they lacked credibility in this.

[CrispyQ]

I'm against animal testing - totally. I don't care if it saves human lives. We should ask people who are suffering from the disease or ailment if they want to volunteer to test a medication or process. If they don't, then how do you justify forcing an innocent animal to do it?

 

We breed mice so they have a propensity for cancer simply so we can then test on them. And not for their betterment, but for ours!

 

We should encourage people to eat healthier & clean up our environment. We should demand that corporations be held accountable for the harm that their chemicals cause, in an effort to rid our products of these chemicals. We make the animals suffer to provide relief for ailments that, in many cases, our life styles cause.

 

Sadly, most people value human life over a rat or cat or dog. It is exactly that mindset, the need to place everything in a hierarchy, with ourselves at the top, that leads to the type of pervasive animal cruelty found in human societies. By turning our back on the most defenseless & vulnerable, be they human or non-human, we turn our back on our humanity.

 

A good online friend said it best: What you do to one, you do to all.

[compassionategirl]

I'm against animal testing - totally. I don't care if it saves human lives. We should ask people who are suffering from the disease or ailment if they want to volunteer to test a medication or process. If they don't, then how do you justify forcing an innocent animal to do it?

We breed mice so they have a propensity for cancer simply so we can then test on them. And not for their betterment, but for ours!

 

We should encourage people to eat healthier & clean up our environment. We should demand that corporations be held accountable for the harm that their chemicals cause, in an effort to rid our products of these chemicals. We make the animals suffer to provide relief for ailments that, in many cases, our life styles cause.

 

Sadly, most people value human life over a rat or cat or dog. It is exactly that mindset, the need to place everything in a hierarchy, with ourselves at the top, that leads to the type of pervasive animal cruelty found in human societies. By turning our back on the most defenseless & vulnerable, be they human or non-human, we turn our back on our humanity.

 

A good online friend said it best: What you do to one, you do to all.

 

Excellent excellent post Lezly. Very well articulated. And the points I turned red is especially despicable and unacceptable on the part of humans.

 

This kind of critical perspective is exactly what is missing from most people's minds. With most people, it is a reflex reaction to think that "animal testing is acceptable because it betters humans." It is that proposition that needs to be vivisected, not the animals! Instead of vivisecting it, we take that proposition for granted as a given or a Truth.

 

I loved your post.

Edited January 17, 2006 by compassionategirl

[CrispyQ]

Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction: Ask vivisectors why they experiment on animals and they say because the animals are like us. Ask them why it is morally okay to experiment on animals and they say because the animals are not like us. - Professor Charles Magel.

 

Instead of giving into our speciest instincts of being in favour of testing that advances the well-being of humans, let us approach the vivisection industry with a more critical and suspicious perspective rather than taking for granted the assumption that animal testing is the only way.

 

 

Well said! And thanks for the quote, which shows the lack of logic & hypocricy in the pro-testing argument.

[CrispyQ]

I must learn how to use red/colored font!

[compassionategirl]

When posting a message, you will see a drop down box for font colour right on top of the window in which you type your message. Highlight the selected text whose font colour you wish to change, then select the font colour from the font colour drop down box.

[violet13]

http://www.vivisection-absurd.org.uk/abs01.html

http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/online/research/drug2b.html

 

Here is my question to people who believe in vivisection(animal experimentation).

If vivisection is so effective to advance medical knowledge, why after more than 100 years of massive animal experimentation at a cost of billions of tax dollars, crippling and deadly diseases of all kinds are affecting an ever-increasing numbers of Americans. Far from curing anything,

Cancer, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, AIDS, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, and birth defect, just to mention a few.

Choice is not between your baby or dog.

Choice is between true science or counterfeit science.

[compassionategirl]

Choice is not between your baby or dog.

Choice is between true science or counterfeit science.

 

Exactly Violet. You raise some other good points too.

[compassionategirl]

[

If animal research would be cut off, then we would not be as advanced medically as we are today. ..

 

The fallacy of this argument lies in its assumption that animal research was/is the only alternative. Just because we as a society havent to date bothered to find alternatives, that doesnt mean that none exist waiting to be discovered. We dont bother as a society because it is convenient and cheap to test on animals and because our moral philosophy with respect to our relationship with animals doesnt compel a need for a search to find alternatives.

 

Pathetic and unacceptable. Let's support the search for alternatives so that we may save human lives while sparing animals theirs.

[compassionategirl]

I've started a new thread for animal testing.

[Attila]

I support animal research because it is beneficial toward the positive development of mankind. If animal research would be cut off, then we would not be as advanced medically as we are today. On the flipside, many of the diseases in our society are caused by eating animal or animal-based products. If society was more careful about the food industry's standards, then we would not have to create so many drugs because new disease would not manifest as rapidly. For example, cutting out steroids and antiobiotics which are added in meat. That would save millions of lives from illness...Peta has a good outlook, but they are too extreme. For example, if animal testing would have to be used toward the final cure for aids, most likely Peta would oppose the animals research and let the disease continue to kill people just to save some animals. Sometimes sacrifices have to be made for progress...

 

There is a cure for aids: use a condom!

 

And if you think that animal research is justified I don't really understand why you are registered on a vegan/animal-rights forum?

Maybe there is one animal experiment in a thousand that could give human species some kind of progress but I don't think it would be justified - if you are this animal you wouldn't say it is justified...

 

PeTA isn't extreme, they just say what's true! We don't need circusses, dog shows, horse backriding, slaughterhouses etcetera...

Edited January 17, 2006 by Attila

[Attila]

Sometimes sacrifices have to be made for progress...

With all due respect, that is easy for us to say when we arent the ones being sacrificed. And then of course there is the matter of degress. While it may arguably be more defensible to use animal testing for curing disease, animal testing so that Proctor and Gamble can maintain its market share in household detergents by coming up with a 17th "new scented" Tide "coldwater" is clearly less defensible. As is animal testing for cosmetics, etc,. etc. Testing taser guns on helpless, squeeling, terrified pigs is not my idea of progress, for example.

 

As far as the "medical research" is concerned, a truly civilized society would be investing resources into finding alternatives to animal research- not taking healthy, terrified animals who have absolutely no choice in the matter and infecting them with painful, crippling, fatal diseases in the "hopes" of finding a cure that will work on humans.

 

Animal experimentatiion is not as clear cut and necessary as the vivisection industry would have us believe.

 

CrispyQ had said that she was at the hospital once and saw a picture of some rabbits in research with a caption reading "volunteeers." This is the kind of disrespectful and callous mentality that is prevalant in the vivisection industry. Talk about an unethical and misleading poster. NO, they were NOT volunteers. They were victims - voiceless, silenced, helpless victims - of a society that thinks it has the right to do as it pleases to animals.

 

Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction: Ask vivisectors why they experiment on animals and they say because the animals are like us. Ask them why it is morally okay to experiment on animals and they say because the animals are not like us. - Professor Charles Magel.

 

Instead of giving into our speciest instincts of being in favour of testing that advances the well-being of humans, let us approach the vivisection industry with a more critical and suspicious perspective rather than taking for granted the assumption that animal testing is the only way.

 

I totally agree compash!

 

The thing is that most of the experiments done on animals are useless. Another thing is that the same experiments are done by many different companies because they don't want to show the results to another company: company A tests drugs on 100 cats and don't want to show the results to company B which is why they torture 100 cats again...that's capitalism...

 

Another point is that the cosmetic industry makes the most of the animal experimentation and now you would say: "hey dude it's forbidden" but the border isn't very clear and most of the companies that do animal research for the medical industry do it also for the cosmetic industry - they test several chemicals and nobody knows what is done with them in the later product. They could be used in a skincream or in a medicament...there is no control - even the vetenarians often have no access to the animals and the data is top secret - like in the covance research lab:

 

www.planet-of-covance.com

[CollegeB]

In Africa there was a guy that made a vitamin for people with AIDS to take and he claimed it would cure them. A company that makes medicine to treat AIDS sued him. My feeling is that if the vitamin would not be effective then why bother taking this guy to court? Another aspect of AIDS is the mounting evidence that the U.N. wants to reduce the world population, and a friend of mine told me the U.S. actually manufactured AIDS. Anyone know more about this?

[violet13]

artystik, is this what you support?

http://www.novivisezione.org/mostra/index_en.htm

Disn't you say you support vivisection(Animal Experimentation)?