Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

NPOV Tag

I've decided to put up a NPOV tag due to the bias content of this article. It needs to be rewritten into a neutral point of view. The critism should be seperate of that from the different parts of the article. Kjones1985 16:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't help but to notice you're not giving any example whatsoever of bias. As for complaining about the criticism not having their own section, what has this to do with neutrality? The criticism is there where it's relevant and has nothing to do with the neutrality of the article. It would be a waste of time removing the tag, I suppose. Jean-Philippe 18:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please be more specific. What do you find biased? Why do you think the criticism should be seperate, even though our guidelines and Jimbo Wales advise otherwise? Also what do you mean by bias? Do you mean unbalanced? If so, this is not the same as POV.-Localzuk ^(talk) 18:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Pets

There's no mention about PeTA's position on people owning pets. I'm very interested in such issues. Could you write into the article how they feel about pets? K, thxKitler005 16:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 16:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 16:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)~ 16:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)~~

I think PETA-philes believe that there is nothing wrong with owning pets --- as long as they're cooked correctly. All joking aside, they somehow find it OK to exploit pets for their cuddliness and cuteness and bond-with-me-yness and pet-on-the-head-ness without realising that perhaps the pets would rather be running around the jungle eating other would-be pets than spam from a can and being trained to sit up and look cute. Oh yeah - it's OK to OWN a pet and train the doggy to catch a frisbee for the owner's enjoyment but we must not vivisect a monkey for medical knowldge or wear leather shoes. Hypocrites. Why they don't just stick to the truly noble cause of preventing animal abuse & cruelty and stop already with the pontificating animal (so-called)rights rubbish is something I'll never know. I do know that these so-minded editors have biased this article and the AR articles to the point where they have no credibility.DocEss 16:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You show a severe lack of knowledge of animal rights and Peta there DocEss. Peta, as far as I am aware are anti-pet ownership and believe all pets should be spayed and neutered. The only pets people should get are from sanctuaries. Training a dog is not just for enjoyment by the owner, it is stimulation for the dog. For example, a dog needs mental stimulation as much as it needs physical exercise, else it would be, to put it in terms that people will understand, would become bored and depressed. This same mental stimulation is another argument against factory farming, vivisection and some other forms of animal abuse. Can you imagine a life which your only stimulation was being fed and taken for a walk? You would soon become depressed. -Localzuk ^(talk) 16:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What you wrote is so silly I don't even want to address it - but I'm addicted to truth, so.... You wrote "The only pets people should get are from sanctuaries"...this implies pet ownership is ok, countering your opening statement "Peta, as far as I am aware are anti-pet ownership...." I think you should make your thoughts complete before you bleat. And I'm quite sure pets don't get spayed and neutered in the wild - why do we mutilate the poor little puppies? As for forms of abuse, it is judgement that makes that call --- vivisection is abuse only when performed by a sadist. My neighbor's cow got depressed - but he tasted just fine.DocEss 17:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a case of levels of confort for an animal - is living in a loving home better than living in a kennels for the rest of its life? If so, then in general AR people believe that it is ok to adopt an animal. Buying a pet is very very different to adopting an animal. Also, 'pet' is not a word in general use by AR people as far as I know - companion animal is.

Regarding pets in the wild - the domesticated breeds of animals we have for 'pets' would not be able to live in the wild. It is believed that it is better for pet breeds to die out than it is to keep them going as 'pets'.

"...the domesticated breeds of animals we have for 'pets' would not be able to live in the wild..." I know of several cats and dogs which would strongly disagree with that statement. Most species of "pets" will simply not die out when -and if! humans ever decide not to have them as pets anymore; they will just go feral (with of course a drastic reduction in the number of breeds). Thinking they will die out is just wishful thinking for the most part.--Ramdrake 15:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that fact is obvious - I am talking of most 'breeds' - ie. animals bred for specific aesthetic traits (like rabbits for their long hair, or white rats, or stupid little dogs for their tinyness). There are a lot more types of pet than just mongrel cats and dogs.-Localzuk ^(talk) 16:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The key here is "breeds". The dog is just a developmentally retarded wolf, chosen via "unnatural selection" for docility; the cat is a similar case of a wild cat selected for sociability. Since they are not "species", they cannot technically become extinct; however, if you radically change the conditions that led to their current form, then those who are not suited for the wild will quickly die off and you'll be left with a new subspecies of wolf and wild cat. This is pretty much what you see with feral dogs and cats, they converge on breed suited for their new environment, such as the pariah dog or the feral cat (which, oddly, is not solitary like wild cats, but tends to form colonies). Other domesticated species would suffer the same fate, with a massive dieoff leaving only the strongest few left to adapt to the new, non-domestic environment. Now while I argued that this isn't extinction, since it's merely a subspecies in quesiton, I think it is genocide, since such a radical change in environment is guaranteed to eradicate the genetic traits that were selected in the domestication process. Granted, you could theoretically re-domesticate the base species (some scientist in Russia tried domesticating the fox, and ended up with what were basically fox-dogs[1], with floppy ears, short, curled tails, and significant coat color changes) but I still think it qualifes as genocide since it is a deliberate attempt to eradicate the breed. (And yes, I know "genocide" is restricted to human culling, but since AR groups don't differentiate based on species, I'm happy to hoist them on their own petard.) scot 17:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, most of the ditinct breeds would probably not die off from attrition, but would be replaced by a much smaller number of subspecies through a miscegenation process. However, the point remains that this would do nothing for the population of feral dogs and cats (except quite possibly increase it), which is the real problem underlying the current pet overpopulation. So, PETA's solution is really not a solution at all, but even possibly a way to make the problem worse.--Ramdrake 17:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Your uncivil and blatantly trolling comments are not welcome on wikipedia and I must ask you to refrain, once again. -Localzuk ^(talk) 17:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

'Companion'? Spare me. Use of seemingly sophisticated PETA-phile jargon does not bolster your arguments. An animal's comfort is only important as long as the meat is still tender and has no whip marks. Move on. The issue at hand is: should the article contain a description of PETA's postion on pet ownership. Obviously I think there should be a section. Opinions?DocEss 17:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there should be such a section - as long as it is well sourced by reliable sources.

DocEss, please don't alter your old comments as it can be overlooked or cause peoples responses to look odd, instead reply to yourself, signing again. -Localzuk ^(talk) 20:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ooops - I thought it would do that automatically...I understand, boss.DocEss 20:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If you can find reliable and verifiable sources to cite, rather than drawing on your own opinion - go ahead. Rockpocket 21:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation.

Ingrid Newkirk, "Just Like Us? Toward a Nation of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August 1988, p. 50.

Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it.

The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist.

John Bryant, "Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic", PETA, 1982, p. 15.

If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you French kiss your dog and he or she thinks it's great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong.

Ingrid Newkirk, as reported in the New York Times[2]

scot 18:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[reset indents here] Oh goodness. Thanks for the advice. I'll write nothing. I'll edit what has been written, though. So get on with it. Doesn't PETA's website declare an official position or dogma on pet ownership? Start there.DocEss 21:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That's great, Scot. What is your point? We are attempting to compose a section that deals with PETA's stance on pet ownership - do you wish to create same or did ya just want to have a brain vomit on this page? If you could please compose these thuper-duper qoutes into something more professional we'd be glad to go through them.DocEss 19:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"If you can find reliable and verifiable sources to cite, rather than drawing on your own opinion - go ahead." Done. PETA opposed pet ownership in general, wishes to eradicate cats and dogs (and I believe, by extension, most domesticated species). However, PETA (or at least Newkirk) has no inherhent objections to sex with consenting animals. I could add a really bad pun here, but I'll refrain... scot 19:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Do not refrain from adding humour to these uptight discussions --- a little levity is welcome. Take for example my little quip that I'm quite fond of: Animals have the right to be tasty. Now...start writing your section on Pet Ownership Dogma of PETA and I'll start reading it. DocEss 17:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of the bad puns have to do with Newkirk's support of Peter Singer's positive stance on consentual zoophilia, and after some experimentation (human, not animal) I've decided they're just too bad for public consumption. However, I will say that PETA's postitive views on sterilizing, euthanizing, and having sex with animals (does an animal have the intellectual capacity to give consent? if not it's rape) it brings new meaning to "Holocaust on your plate".

I'm not sure that I'm the right person to write anything about PETA, as I'm pretty sure I'd be forced to use the word genocide, which while technically correct (they do promote the eradication of domestic species) is a really, really emotionally loaded word. But then, so is "Holocaust", but Newkirk, and by extention PETA, is a media slut (her own words). scot 18:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Then I suggest you be quiet. Your observations, however clever to yourself, do not get us closer to the goal.DocEss 19:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What about Kitlers? Cats that look like Adulf Hitler.? 4.89.135.18 22:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There is more "postive" infomation than negative, it needs to be balanced.—Preceding unsigned comment added by kjones1985 (talk • contribs)

Incorrect. Just because an article contains more positive information than negative does not mean it is a bad article. So long as the information that is included is verifiable and sourced then it is fine. NPOV is not about 'positive and negative' but about presenting what information is available in a neutral way, by not providing opinions but by providing facts.-Localzuk ^(talk) 16:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on, anyone with even a hint of politcial sense knows that far and away the best way to lie is by careful omission of inconvenient facts. Take for instance the commonly stated "fact" about Bush--"He's the least popular president." This can be said only leave out the fact that polling has only been around since the latter half of the 20th century, so he can only be compared with those presidents. Compare him to, say, Lincoln, who wasn't even on the ballot in 9 states, got only 40% of the popular vote, and the mere fact he was elected threw the country into armed conflict, and Bush looks quite popular indeed. scot 19:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The level of positive vs. negative info is wholly irreleavnt to an article's being classified as good or bad. Objectivity is what counts. Now, we are trying to compose an aporriate section about PETA's stance on pet ownership. Let us get on with it.DocEss 19:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never commented on Wikipedia before, but I just watched the latest episode of Pen and Teller's Bullshit on televsion and in a speech by the leader of PETA she clearly states a goal of total liberation for all animals for any purpose including pleasure. This would clearly include pets. 00:12, 13 September 2006 (GMT+10, Hobart)

Reference Formatting

I tried to standardize the formatting of the references but it's still not complete. Any help is appreciated. Jared 00:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Question

Should there be a civilization reformatting/ending disaster, what would the "AR" people do ? Ever seen Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior ? The people will resume hunting, as they had to do in ancient times, to feed their families, and they will kill the AR people. In 20-30 years, a asteroid is scheduled to come by this planet, and there is a chance this rock will hit this planet. IF it hits, the current civilization will be terminated. Logic dictates that SURVIVAL will take precedence over Animal, Environmental rights. Martial Law 19:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to offend anyone, just asking a legit question, no more, no less. There really is a asteroid on its way here and the chance exists that it may hit this planet. Martial Law 19:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Odds are, if the asteroid hits, virtually all people will be wiped out. The few remaining nearly extinct human specimens will be protected by the PR (People Rights) groups among the ruling animals. Crum375 19:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You are talking a lot of ifs there... Of course human nature is to survive and that would preclude any concept of rights. However, the movement we discuss, when we talk about animal rights, is based on the current society and not a post apololyptic society such as those you speak of.-Localzuk ^(talk) 19:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

WP NOT accepting edits ?

WHAT is going on ? Someone accidentally removed the "Cultural Influences" section, I re-instate it, only WP does NOT accept it, except in the history section. Martial Law 18:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yea, and all the references and external links are gone as well.L0b0t 18:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorted. Rockpocket 18:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Seen evidence of vandalisim and a edit war. That have anything to do with this malfunction ? Martial Law 18:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit Episode

Episode: Season 2: 2004, 2-01, "P.E.T.A.", April 1, 2004, Focus: P.E.T.A. and the Animal Liberation Front Martial Law 18:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good - can you insert it in the article as a reference? Thanks, Crum375 18:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Done so. Martial Law 19:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I just watched this episode of BS, and it clearly states PETA's views of "total liberation" for all animals thus clearing up the debate about their stance on pets.

Protection Request

If the vandalisim is still going on, can this article be "S-Protected", even placed under FULL protection ? Martial Law 19:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Page protection is used as a last resort, when it becomes clear to an admin that other methods are not sufficient to contain a disruptive situation.

Semi-protect would be used in the case of a large wave of vandalism from multiple independent anon IP addresses (or fresh accounts) that are impractical to block individually. A 'large wave' in this context would be dozens of vandal edits from anon IP sources (or fresh accounts) per day, or more, again all (or most) from different addresses. Looking at the edit history of this article I don't see it coming anywhere close to those criteria - it is fairly normal in the vandalism rate given its notable and contentious subject.

Full protection could be used for edit war resolution, but there is no significant edit war here, given the article type.

So in summary, no protection is needed at this time, IMO. Crum375 21:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, IMO there are more than enough editors watching this page like vultures to take care of any vandalism that may pop up. L0b0t 22:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)