Sunday, January 21, 2007

Here is a wonderful critique of peta, regarding the same stupid campaign that I just now learned about (see my entry below this one):


Published on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 by
Can Humans and Animals be Allies?
by Naomi Jaffe

"A world whose human power system is based on "might makes right," on the ruthless slaughter and violent exploitation of less powerful by more powerful humans, cannot possibly be a place of compassion (let alone justice) for non-humans. That is not to say the struggle for animal rights should wait. It is to say that its success depends on taking its place alongside the radical human movements whose vision is of overthrowing the lords of inequality in the name of another kind of system altogether. The animal rights movement can only be part of that tide of liberation when it understands and takes a stand against white supremacy and racism."
I didn't even know that Ingrid Newkirk and her Co-Workers would run such A Nother retarted campaign, but obviously they do or did. I can't be bothered with following track of their activities anymore, eversince I learned about their sick views on strays feral cats - which peta actually prefers to kill, and some other issues of theirs, etc. Anyway, I came across this partly interesting critique of PeTA's stratagems:..SEE QUOTE AND LINK BOTTOM. But what I find a shame is, that animals get drawn into the critiques of the organization peta.

What I mean is, if peta makes a stupid campaign, that doesnt mean that their stance has anything to do with animals in a more realistic sense.

Peta themselves have a warped and derogative view about animals, since they see animals as subjects of a kind that ought to be pitied instead of acknowledged in their truly independent rights.

Both, PETA and the people who criticize peta (such as the author of that critique, in the link below), see animals from a standpoint which measures with a paradigma suitable to themselves.

But a fact is that animals are - seem from a moral standpoint - as independent of any fixed and constricted definition, as I am or you are. It does not really matter if they "feel" like "we do" or not. The important point to highlight is: Animal Rights, as far as animals themselves are regarded, Animal Rights deals with respecting DIFFERENCES to a total, all-inclusive extent, but independent to people's paradigmas.

The observations about animals, done by any animal lover or any one else, have so far never been put into terms disconnected from the biological dispositionings. But exactly here lies the big question: shall any or all life, be explained and ruled over on the basis of biological argumentation?

Well I hope not! Or else, here is the interesting quote and below is the link.

"This kind of absurdity would make for a really good segment on the Daily Show, if it weren't so tragically serious. The very legitimate goal of stopping the immense horror of factory farming--which horror should be able to stand on its own as an unacceptable cruelty, in need of immediate action--gets conflated with the extermination of millions of people in two separate Holocausts (that of the Middle Passage and that in Europe), thereby ensuring that damn near everyone who hears the analogy will conclude that PETA is either completely insensitive, at best, or bull-goose-loony, at worst: no offense meant to geese, by the way."