P
Patriot Games
Guest
http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070827/EDIT/708270309/1003
8-27-07
PETA is as sick as Vick
The Michael Vick dogfighting scandal is morphing into a broader NFL
dogfighting scandal, as other NFL players also appear to be involved in this
very weird pastime.
But as animal-rights groups get more aggressive in their accusations and
demands, the whole scene is getting stranger. And the closer you look, the
more you see the deep conflicts in core values that fracture our society.
PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) wants the NFL to "add
cruelty to animals - in all its forms - to its personal conduct policy."
What, for PETA, is "cruelty to animals - in all its forms"? According to its
Web site, we should not eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment or
abuse animals in any way.
So PETA's problem is well beyond the sick murdering of these creatures of
which Vick and others are allegedly guilty. Dogfighting for entertainment,
or any other use of animals for entertainment, is itself, for PETA, cruelty.
If it's relevant to look for any kind of logic here, why would it be decent
entertainment to watch hulks of men ram the daylights out of each other as
they move a ball across a field, but cruel to watch dogs fight? Why would
the NFL sign on to such a thing?
More specifically, among PETA's prohibitions, is the use of animal skins.
The ball, as in football, is an inflated leather object endearingly called
the "pigskin."
Why does PETA oppose existing NFL conduct policy, and not football itself?
J.C. Watts, Chuck Colson and others have asked why abuse of dogs is
outrageous to so many who see no similar outrage in the 800,000-plus
abortions that occur in the United States each year. At the most intuitive
level, there is something unsettling about an attitude for which abuse of a
dog is intolerable, but women destroying their unborn children with impunity
is not a problem.
Logging onto the PETA Web site, I notice the PETA Files blog announces as
one of the group's supporters porn star Jenna Jameson. "In addition to being
an icon of the adult-film world, Jenna Jameson ... happens to be a good
friend of PETA. Jenna first got involved in animal rights after watching
'Earthlings' a year or so ago, and we couldn't be happier to have her on her
side in our KFC campaign ... She also happens to date ...UFC fighter Tito
Ortiz ..."
Again I wonder. PETA is untroubled by pornography, the unapologetic
exploitation of human flesh, but explains that we should not eat fish
because they "are smart, interesting animals with their own unique
personalities." The blogger says Jameson is "beautiful, inside and out."
The UFC - Ultimate Fighting Championship - where Jameson's boyfriend fights
consists of "mixed martial arts," where fighters do violent battle, for
popular entertainment, using the full array of martial-arts forms. The PETA
blogger obviously enjoys this sport and calls Ortiz "my favorite UFC
fighter."
PETA provides material on its Web site to explain the rationale of the
"animal-rights" concept that drives its worldview. "When it comes to pain,
love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy," says
PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk.
For more extensive exposition, the site refers to the writings of Princeton
philosopher Peter Singer, author of "Animal Liberation."
Now Singer has written on a great deal more than animal rights. He's the
author of "Practical Ethics," in which he offers his justifications for
euthanasia, abortion and infanticide.
According to Singer, parents should be permitted to kill a baby born with a
tragic illness or defect. In "Practical Ethics," he argues that "... the
fact that a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species
Homo sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather,
characteristics like rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness that make
a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore,
cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other
self-conscious beings."
Thus, through a long and twisted road of logic, beginning with one man's own
premises about existence, we are led to a conclusion that killing animals is
an outrage, but an infant, not. Computer scientists call this "garbage in,
garbage out." Our conclusions are only as good as the premises we start
with. Hence, the cultural divide in our country. It all starts with where we
get our premises.
8-27-07
PETA is as sick as Vick
The Michael Vick dogfighting scandal is morphing into a broader NFL
dogfighting scandal, as other NFL players also appear to be involved in this
very weird pastime.
But as animal-rights groups get more aggressive in their accusations and
demands, the whole scene is getting stranger. And the closer you look, the
more you see the deep conflicts in core values that fracture our society.
PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) wants the NFL to "add
cruelty to animals - in all its forms - to its personal conduct policy."
What, for PETA, is "cruelty to animals - in all its forms"? According to its
Web site, we should not eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment or
abuse animals in any way.
So PETA's problem is well beyond the sick murdering of these creatures of
which Vick and others are allegedly guilty. Dogfighting for entertainment,
or any other use of animals for entertainment, is itself, for PETA, cruelty.
If it's relevant to look for any kind of logic here, why would it be decent
entertainment to watch hulks of men ram the daylights out of each other as
they move a ball across a field, but cruel to watch dogs fight? Why would
the NFL sign on to such a thing?
More specifically, among PETA's prohibitions, is the use of animal skins.
The ball, as in football, is an inflated leather object endearingly called
the "pigskin."
Why does PETA oppose existing NFL conduct policy, and not football itself?
J.C. Watts, Chuck Colson and others have asked why abuse of dogs is
outrageous to so many who see no similar outrage in the 800,000-plus
abortions that occur in the United States each year. At the most intuitive
level, there is something unsettling about an attitude for which abuse of a
dog is intolerable, but women destroying their unborn children with impunity
is not a problem.
Logging onto the PETA Web site, I notice the PETA Files blog announces as
one of the group's supporters porn star Jenna Jameson. "In addition to being
an icon of the adult-film world, Jenna Jameson ... happens to be a good
friend of PETA. Jenna first got involved in animal rights after watching
'Earthlings' a year or so ago, and we couldn't be happier to have her on her
side in our KFC campaign ... She also happens to date ...UFC fighter Tito
Ortiz ..."
Again I wonder. PETA is untroubled by pornography, the unapologetic
exploitation of human flesh, but explains that we should not eat fish
because they "are smart, interesting animals with their own unique
personalities." The blogger says Jameson is "beautiful, inside and out."
The UFC - Ultimate Fighting Championship - where Jameson's boyfriend fights
consists of "mixed martial arts," where fighters do violent battle, for
popular entertainment, using the full array of martial-arts forms. The PETA
blogger obviously enjoys this sport and calls Ortiz "my favorite UFC
fighter."
PETA provides material on its Web site to explain the rationale of the
"animal-rights" concept that drives its worldview. "When it comes to pain,
love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy," says
PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk.
For more extensive exposition, the site refers to the writings of Princeton
philosopher Peter Singer, author of "Animal Liberation."
Now Singer has written on a great deal more than animal rights. He's the
author of "Practical Ethics," in which he offers his justifications for
euthanasia, abortion and infanticide.
According to Singer, parents should be permitted to kill a baby born with a
tragic illness or defect. In "Practical Ethics," he argues that "... the
fact that a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species
Homo sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather,
characteristics like rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness that make
a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore,
cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other
self-conscious beings."
Thus, through a long and twisted road of logic, beginning with one man's own
premises about existence, we are led to a conclusion that killing animals is
an outrage, but an infant, not. Computer scientists call this "garbage in,
garbage out." Our conclusions are only as good as the premises we start
with. Hence, the cultural divide in our country. It all starts with where we
get our premises.