Main Animal Wrongs Group Discussion

Collapse/Expand Topics

09:59:18 PM Mar 30th 2013
Here's a question I'd like answered: Given the pile of evidence suggesting that PETA is funding domestic terrorism (though not to the point where they can be brought on charges for it... yet), should they really be used as an example of an animal RIGHTS group? (take note of the fact that they employed a domestic terrorist that classified his actions as "random acts of kindness and compassion" and claims to follow in the footsteps of people like Gandhi and Jesus)

And so many more.
02:28:49 PM Jun 24th 2014
It's a moot point for this particular wiki, seeing as real-life examples are blocked in this particular article.
04:46:48 PM Mar 28th 2013
Better page pic? This one relies on the caption almost entirely. I'd go so far as to say that the image does nothing to illustrate the trope.
07:20:36 AM Mar 29th 2013
Holy CRAP that's bad. Taking it to Image Pickin'
01:29:30 AM Jan 13th 2013
Green Peace is a hate group since it launches carbon taxes, doesn't care when humans are living in the same condition as animals and want humans to be extinct.
07:04:06 AM Oct 2nd 2011
Should the Real Life section— which attempts to distinguish between animal welfare, animal rights, and animal liberation— be moved to Analysis, with the trope description having good old No Real Life Examples, Please!?
08:20:42 PM Oct 26th 2011
That might be a good idea, though the "no Real Life examples" blurb should probably call attention to it. Something like, "In Real Life, there's three primary flavors of animal activism you should know about; see the Analysis tab for more. Beyond that, No Real Life Examples, Please!."
12:27:05 AM Aug 5th 2011
I don't know weather to trust PETA and I don't believe in animal rights in principle (just animal welfare), but why do people keep saying PETA opposes pet ownership when their own website indicates otherwise?
07:07:35 AM Oct 2nd 2011
Ingrid Newkirk (PETA founder) has been quoted describing pet ownership as "an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation", but a) the provenance of the quote is a bit iffy (the searches on Google tend to pop up a lot of anti-PETA sites) and b) even if it's true, Newkirk's approach to animal rights is a bit... special.
08:07:23 AM Jan 6th 2011
Was this trope written by butthurt animal rights looney seeking to prove that his kind aren't actually completely insane and not caring how many people get hurt (often by their own actions), as long as animals are okay? A sorry sight.
10:24:38 AM Jan 15th 2011
Go back to ED.
10:11:59 PM Jul 16th 2010
edited by choir
Why is there such a long the trope explanation?The main page explanation could definitely be trimmed down, a lot.
11:20:37 PM Jul 24th 2010
I disagree. The explanation between the difference in philosophies between animal welfare, animal rights, and animal liberation isn't something well known (as evidenced by lemler's claims above) and deserves some attention.
07:39:23 AM Jul 27th 2010
It's pretty sad that there even needs to be such a long disclaimer to prevent page defacement by drama queens who believe things that any person that has actually lived among wild animals would know to be dead wrong (for both the activists and the animals they think they're protecting). Animals simply don't process information the way humans do. When a human feeds a wild animal, the animal doesn't think, "Humans are nice!" Instead, the animal thinks, "Humans are edible!" and eventually becomes trained to act accordingly. Even herbivores like deer will eventually start attacking humans if they are fed enough to overcome their fear of predation.
08:58:18 AM Jul 27th 2010
edited by SomeGuy
It still makes the main description too long for easy reading is the thing. I've moved it to a Real Life section at the top of the example list that should hopefully help dissuade anyone from trying to add their own Truth in Television examples.
08:33:00 AM Aug 15th 2010
@ Surely, though, that little fact doesn't justify factory farming, vivisection, animals in entertainment, etc., does it?
09:55:20 AM Aug 26th 2010
@Luna87 Begging the Question there, much?
07:58:43 PM Sep 3rd 2010
edited by TBeholder

...the question is, whether ever-present Drama Queens don't know what any PETA member (each of these is a freakin' Tarzan who "lived among wild animals" in jungles, that's why they are renowned for confronting big nasty leather-wearing bikers) knows or what anyone remotely sane understands?
11:00:36 PM Jun 13th 2010
Cut this example, from Sid Meier's alien Crossfire, since there's nothing in it to indicate that this is an animal or plant's rights group, simply environmentalists in general:

  • The Gaian Stepdaughters in the core game are initially portrayed as an environmentally conscious, yet pacifistic and peaceloving faction. However, If one studies the various blurbs in-game, it is heavily implied that canonically they utterly wipe out the Spartans, a faction of belligerent Crazy-Prepared military nuts, using Mind Worms; a native species that combines Body Horror and Mind Rape to make a potent form of Nightmare Fuel laden death!
07:52:20 AM Jul 27th 2010
edited by
(removed, unrelated to topic)
09:43:05 PM Jun 13th 2010
I feel the essay on this page has gotten a bit out of hand; this is an article about the trope in the media, so it doesn't need this much real-life argument. Compare vs. Corrupt Church, for instance, an article on a similar War On Straw topic which has potential real-life examples, but which manages to tiptoe around flamewars about whether they justify the trope or not.

Anyhow, since someone reverted my first effort at trimming it down, I posted a thread here, to get more discussion:
11:02:05 PM Jun 13th 2010
edited by Madrugada
The explanation of the differences between the types of groups isn't arguments. Not all animal welfare/rights/liberation groups are equally extreme. I did cut out the links and a lot of the justification/attacks and try to make it more informational and less biased.
02:33:57 PM Jun 29th 2010
The explanations between the different types of groups may not be intended as arguments, but that doesn't mean they can't be inaccurate, or biased.

The idea that all self-proclaimed "animal rights" groups believe that the concept of pets should be outlawed, because owning a pet is comparable to slavery (ie, a person owning another person), is just flat-out inaccurate. There may be some self-proclaimed animal rights groups that believe this. There are many that don't. One can believe that animals should have some rights (like the right not to be tortured or subjected to inhumane treatment, the right to appropriate amounts of food and water and space, etc.) without believing that there should be no legal distinction between people and animals.

I'd really like to know where it says that part of the definition of "animal rights" is the belief that having a pet is no different than having a slave.

That's my argument, this is just an illustration for anyone who's interested: One of the biggest debates within groups that care about animals is whether it should be legal to sue veteranarians for malpractice. (As of now in the U.S., even if a veterarian is grossly, grossly negligent to your pet, you can only sue for the market value of the pet. Which means if your dog was a mutt, you're screwed.) The groups that support the possibility of suing vets for malpractice are, essentially, arguing that animals should have some recognition under the law beyond being the property of their owners. (You can't sue a mechanic for malpractice.) Thus, these groups support animal rights. Whereas some animal welfare groups don't want to see this change happen - usually they argue that if vets need malpractice insurance, their fees will go up, and not everyone will be able to afford to get care for their sick pets. That's one description of the way that an "animal welfare" viewpoint would conflict with an "animal rights" viewpoint. That's pretty different from, "if you believe in animal rights, you believe pets are the equivalent of slaves," isn't it?
08:42:43 PM Jul 4th 2010
edited by TrevMUN
"I'd really like to know where it says that part of the definition of "animal rights" is the belief that having a pet is no different than having a slave. "

It was there originally as a link to Wikipedia on Animal Rights. Madrugada cut it out as part of his attempt to make the article "more informational" and "less biased." (Ironic, don't you think?)

You can read the article here. I'll copy some of the highlights for you:

"Advocates approach the issue from different philosophical positions, but agree that animals should be viewed as non-human persons and members of the moral community, and should not be used as food, clothing, research subjects, or entertainment. They argue that human beings should stop seeing other sentient beings as propertyŚnot even as property to be treated kindly."

"Critics argue that animals are unable to enter into a social contract or make moral choices, and for that reason cannot be regarded as possessors of rights, a position summed up by the philosopher Roger Scruton, who writes that only humans have duties and therefore only humans have rights. A parallel argument is that there is nothing inherently wrong with using animals as resources so long there is no unnecessary suffering, a view known as the animal welfare position."

"That's one description of the way that an "animal welfare" viewpoint would conflict with an "animal rights" viewpoint. That's pretty different from, "if you believe in animal rights, you believe pets are the equivalent of slaves," isn't it? "

If people are going to accuse the description of the three different schools of animal welfare/rights as "inaccurate" because someone removed the links describing various movements' philosophies, then I may well just restore those links.
Collapse/Expand Topics