mental illness

[SmokeAndMirrors]

On the bolded, I tend to agree with you, and we can see evidence of this among environmentalists as well as religious fanatics. That is one of the reasons I place them under the same umbrella of adherence to an ideology.

Then, on the other hand, I was "brainwashed" as a child with Christianity, but I don't believe in violence as a solution, unless someone commits violence against me first. Where does that leave me? Mentally ill?

Well, probably not, but just so we're clear: if you weren't born in the west, you probably wouldn't be a Christian.

Still, there is a world of difference between your average religious person, and a religious zealot. Religious zealots are more likely to not only harm others, but also to harm themselves. How many stories do we read about high-exposure zealots living closested, disordered lives?

There's also a difference between your average environmentalist, and an environmental extremist -- although I'd like to note that one can arrive at environmentalism regardless of their location, and without any "leap of faith," which makes it fundamentally different from religion.

Still, an environmental extremist is more likely to harm others, or themselves, just like a religious fundamentalist, yes.

And in either case, these are anti-social, paranoid, self-damaging behaviors. Yeah, I'd say we should look into whether it should be classed as a mental illness.

And even more tellingly, there seem to be some people who swing to different kinds of extreme over their lifetime. For example, starting out a religious zealot, and becoming an environmental zealot. There seem to be people who just can't modulate their thinking, and there's even suggestion that genes may contribute to this.

There's also proof that even the majority of relatively normal people can be brainwashed into zealotry. They can literally have their brains re-wired by influence. And yet, some people are invulnerable to this. What makes them different?

I think that certainly warrants investigation.

Okay, I didn't know environmentalist killed people in the name of saving the environment.

Oh, they do a lot of things. PETA actually kills most of the animals in their "shelters." About 90%. Some vandalize or even set fire to research facilities. Yeah, they can get pretty bad.

 

[Paschendale]

Well, that's the point. Someone could decide that it's OK to murder someone if they feel like it. From their moral perspective it might be OK. Clearly we disagree, but I don't see how you can prove one is right or one is wrong, objectively.

Simple, are there any possible victims of murder (that is, who do not consent) who would be okay with being murdered? Obviously not. If you believe in personal liberty or human rights at all, you have to think that it's wrong to subject people to suffering that they don't consent to. So then there has to be an objective baseline. If being alive entitles a person to any intrinsic rights, morality cannot be wholly subjective.

 

[Knowledge=power]

Simple, are there any possible victims of murder (that is, who do not consent) who would be okay with being murdered? Obviously not. If you believe in personal liberty or human rights at all, you have to think that it's wrong to subject people to suffering that they don't consent to. So then there has to be an objective baseline. If being alive entitles a person to any intrinsic rights, morality cannot be wholly subjective.

I tend to believe that moral values are subjective, because of the range of beliefs between people and cultures.

However, I see your point about taking life - I think taking someones right to live is among the few truly objectively wrong acts.

 

[afr0byte]

Simple, are there any possible victims of murder (that is, who do not consent) who would be okay with being murdered? Obviously not. If you believe in personal liberty or human rights at all, you have to think that it's wrong to subject people to suffering that they don't consent to. So then there has to be an objective baseline. If being alive entitles a person to any intrinsic rights, morality cannot be wholly subjective.

Yes, but how does one objectively decide that baseline? How do we objectively show that personal liberty matters?

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Oh, they do a lot of things. PETA actually kills most of the animals in their "shelters." About 90%. Some vandalize or even set fire to research facilities. Yeah, they can get pretty bad.

I believe euthanasia is a whole other topic of discussion but I wouldn't label it the same as murder. Also, I highly doubt PETA engages in burning buildings down unless you have a court case that proves this allegation. Groups like The Center for Consumer Freedom put out all sorts of propaganda. I take what they say with a grain of salt.

 

[Paschendale]

I tend to believe that moral values are subjective, because of the range of beliefs between people and cultures.

However, I see your point about taking life - I think taking someones right to live is among the few truly objectively wrong acts.

Values can differ from culture to culture, but those values are just different manifestations of the same basic underlying principles. In one culture, it's polite to shake hands. In another, it's polite to bow. But every culture has some form of politeness. Respect for other people is a universal moral value.

I think perhaps we're seeing more eye to eye now.

 

[Knowledge=power]

Values can differ from culture to culture, but those values are just different manifestations of the same basic underlying principles. In one culture, it's polite to shake hands. In another, it's polite to bow. But every culture has some form of politeness. Respect for other people is a universal moral value.

I think perhaps we're seeing more eye to eye now.

Right, I can think of a few values that could be universally objective.

The only problem I see here is that some cultures view certain acts as completely acceptible, while other cultures would put people in prison for the same act.

Example: Papua New Guniea tribes view it as completely acceptible and part of tradition that older men 'teach' young boys sexuality.

Here in the states and most places in the world, that custom is deplorable and would earn a long prison sentence for the purpitrator.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

I believe euthanasia is a whole other topic of discussion but I wouldn't label it the same as murder. Also, I highly doubt PETA engages in burning buildings down unless you have a court case that proves this allegation. Groups like The Center for Consumer Freedom put out all sorts of propaganda. I take what they say with a grain of salt.

Euthanasia is defined as something you do for an animal or person who is suffering with little or no hope of recovering. I've euthanased a pet of my own. I have no problem with euthanasia.

But killing perfectly healthy animals is not euthanasia. And furthermore, the reason they do this is because they want to eliminate domestic animals. They don't think people should be allowed to keep them. Well, ok. I can kind of accept that. But they could accomplish the same goal by neutering all the animals they can and letting them live out their lives as happily as possible.

But they think just killing every animal they can get their hands on is a better solution. This, from a so-called "animal rights" advocacy organization, is just diabolical. Their whole premise is that humans shouldn't force their will on animals, but somehow it's ok for humans to kill them for no reason. It's like saying children shouldn't be abandoned, and just killing them all rather than trying to find them homes.

No, PETA doesn't do so much of the vandalism thing. Sorry if I was unclear; I was talking about other environmentalist groups.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Euthanasia is defined as something you do for an animal or person who is suffering with little or no hope of recovering. I've euthanased a pet of my own. I have no problem with euthanasia.

But killing perfectly healthy animals is not euthanasia. And furthermore, the reason they do this is because they want to eliminate domestic animals. They don't think people should be allowed to keep them. Well, ok. I can kind of accept that. But they could accomplish the same goal by neutering all the animals they can and letting them live out their lives as happily as possible.

But they think just killing every animal they can get their hands on is a better solution. This, from a so-called "animal rights" advocacy organization, is just diabolical. Their whole premise is that humans shouldn't force their will on animals, but somehow it's ok for humans to kill them for no reason. It's like saying children shouldn't be abandoned, and just killing them all rather than trying to find them homes.

No, PETA doesn't do so much of the vandalism thing. Sorry if I was unclear; I was talking about other environmentalist groups.

So, you think the existence of PETA is to kill domestic animals:roll: No use in furthering this discussion.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

So, you think the existence of PETA is to kill domestic animals:roll: No use in furthering this discussion.

I don't know if it's why they exist, but I know that they do it. They report it shamelessly. Google-fu it, young master.

VDACS Online Animal Reporting

PETA even says themselves that they kill practically all of the animals they get. I don't "think" anything. I just read the numbers they report.

My question is, why do you have such a need to "think" that they don't?

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

I don't know if it's why they exist, but I know that they do it. They report it shamelessly. Google-fu it, young master.

VDACS Online Animal Reporting

PETA even says themselves that they kill practically all of the animals they get. I don't "think" anything. I just read the numbers they report.

My question is, why do you have such a need to "think" that they don't?

Motive is everything. Why do you think so many strays are euthanized in this country? It would be nice to have more shelters opened to care for strays until they are adopted. In the meantime, I certainly wouldn't claim PETA is euthanizing strays because they don't want them to be domestic pets. What a leap.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Motive is everything. Why do you think so many strays are euthanized in this country? It would be nice to have more shelters opened to care for strays until they are adopted. In the meantime, I certainly wouldn't claim PETA is euthanizing strays because they don't want them to be domestic pets. What a leap.

Again, why don't you try looking it up? They say it right on their web page: they don't think people should have pets.

http://www.peta.org/about/why-peta/pets.aspx

And I don't necessarily have a problem with that stance. What I have a problem with, is that they simply kill all of them.

Not even high-kill shelters have a 90% kill rate. PETA doesn't even take in that many animals. Their adoption rate has dropped over the years, despite higher demand at shelters, and successful no-kill shelters. They are choosing to kill them on purpose, not because they lack space. And they are against no-kill shelters, even though there are successful models of completely no-kill cities.

So, they obviously don't believe in the spay/neuter policy they say they do, otherwise they would be doing that rather than just killing them all.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Again, why don't you try looking it up? They say it right on their web page: they don't think people should have pets.

Animal Rights Uncompromised: 'Pets' | PETA.org

And I don't necessarily have a problem with that stance. What I have a problem with, is that they simply kill all of them.

Not even high-kill shelters have a 90% kill rate. PETA doesn't even take in that many animals. Their adoption rate has dropped over the years, despite higher demand at shelters, and successful no-kill shelters. They are choosing to kill them on purpose, not because they lack space. And they are against no-kill shelters, even though there are successful models of completely no-kill cities.

So, they obviously don't believe in the spay/neuter policy they say they do, otherwise they would be doing that rather than just killing them all.

I've good comprehension skills. To spay and neuter would not take care of the over population of strays once in the possession of PETA looking at the high numbers of strays they receive. None of this proves they are killing animals because they don't believe in domestic pets. On the contrary, they state they would prefer people to adopt from shelters and/or pounds rather than continue to breed them.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

I've good comprehension skills. To spay and neuter would not take care of the over population of strays once in the possession of PETA looking at the high numbers of strays they receive. None of this proves they are killing animals because they don't believe in domestic pets. On the contrary, they state they would prefer people to adopt from shelters and/or pounds rather than continue to breed them.

Obviously not.

Neutering and killing have the same affect: no more offspring. And like I said, several cities have successfully addressed the problem, and gone completely no-kill. If PETA had any interest in giving the domestic animals that are already here good lives, they would be all over that. But instead, they actively oppose such projects.

Also, PETA doesn't take in high numbers of animals. Compared to most kill shelters, they take in very few, which makes it even more inexcusable that they kill the ones they get.

What they state is completely at odds with what they do. Any person who isn't willfully gullible can see that.

 

[Paschendale]

Right, I can think of a few values that could be universally objective.

The only problem I see here is that some cultures view certain acts as completely acceptible, while other cultures would put people in prison for the same act.

Example: Papua New Guniea tribes view it as completely acceptible and part of tradition that older men 'teach' young boys sexuality.

Here in the states and most places in the world, that custom is deplorable and would earn a long prison sentence for the purpitrator.

Then we should look at the underlying reasoning for those customs. What we really oppose, under the rules, is adults taking sexual advantage of the young. It's not the act, it's the predatory nature of the act. There's malice in it. I don't know much about PNG's tradition, but if it is done for different reasons, it may well be okay. Sexual autonomy starting at 18 is our rule to attempt to protect the young from sexual exploitation. That may well be the intent of PNG's tradition as well.

If you go deeper (no joke intended) you can find the underlying idea, and it can certainly correspond to a universal moral rule.

 

[Hard Truth]

Is there any doubt that some people's religious fanaticism is harmful to both themselves and others? However, generally I think it is a symptom, not a condition on its own.

Here's an interesting perspective from a religious leader (as remembered and paraphrased):

"We believe that excess is sin. Even activities that are beneficial can be harmful if taken to excess. That is why we don't have monks in our religion, because we feel that even excess prayer can be harmful if it keeps you from being productive."




an American Muslim

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Obviously not.

Neutering and killing have the same affect: no more offspring. And like I said, several cities have successfully addressed the problem, and gone completely no-kill. If PETA had any interest in giving the domestic animals that are already here good lives, they would be all over that. But instead, they actively oppose such projects.

Also, PETA doesn't take in high numbers of animals. Compared to most kill shelters, they take in very few, which makes it even more inexcusable that they kill the ones they get.

What they state is completely at odds with what they do. Any person who isn't willfully gullible can see that.

Name me a place that has gone "no kill". Also, I would like you to show me comparisons to other shelters to support your last claim.

 

[Hard Truth]

Euthanasia is defined as something you do for an animal or person who is suffering with little or no hope of recovering. I've euthanased a pet of my own. I have no problem with euthanasia.

But killing perfectly healthy animals is not euthanasia. And furthermore, the reason they do this is because they want to eliminate domestic animals. They don't think people should be allowed to keep them. Well, ok. I can kind of accept that. But they could accomplish the same goal by neutering all the animals they can and letting them live out their lives as happily as possible.

But they think just killing every animal they can get their hands on is a better solution. This, from a so-called "animal rights" advocacy organization, is just diabolical. Their whole premise is that humans shouldn't force their will on animals, but somehow it's ok for humans to kill them for no reason. It's like saying children shouldn't be abandoned, and just killing them all rather than trying to find them homes.

The claim that PETA kills perfectly healthy animals because they want to eliminate domestic animals. and don't think people should be allowed to keep them appears to be untrue disinformation. PETA has a lot of well-funded enemies who don't appreciate their activities exposing abuse of animals used as livestock, for circuses etc.

"PETA operates what could be called a "shelter of last resort" for the most broken animals. When impoverished families cannot afford to pay a veterinarian to let a suffering and/or aged animal leave this world, PETA will help. When an aggressive, unsocialized dog has been left to starve at the end of a chain with a collar grown into his neck and his body racked with mange, PETA will spare him from dying slowly and miserably in someone's backyard. As Virginia officials speaking of PETA's euthanasia rate acknowledged to USA Today,

We never turn our back on animals who need help, even if the best we can offer them is a peaceful release from an uncaring world. PETA also works every day to prevent animals from ending up abused, homeless, and euthanized in the first place—a fact that the CCF never mentions on its PETA Kills Animals website.

As we explain in The Atlantic, the statistics that CCF reports don't include the many adoptable animals we have referred to high-traffic open-admission shelters where they will have the best chance of being seen and finding a new home. Those numbers also don't take into account the tens of thousands of animals whose lives we have improved and saved—by providing free spay and neuter surgeries, sturdy doghouses stuffed with straw, nutritious food, and much more.

PETA spends millions to stop the animal homelessness crisis at its roots. Our fleet of mobile clinics has sterilized more than 80,000 animals—including thousands of feral cats and pit bulls—for free or almost nothing in the last 10 years, preventing tens of thousands of animals from being born into a world already bursting at the seams with unwanted and homeless animals.

We also provide hands-on help to people in indigent communities who don't have transportation and/or access to veterinary care, most of whom could not afford it even if it were available in their community. Every year, we help keep countless animals out of overburdened shelters by providing free sterilizations and shots as well as counseling to help people work through perceived obstacles to keeping their animals.

Attacking those who clean up after a throwaway society that thoughtlessly buys, breeds, and discards cats and dogs does nothing to help animals. The only way to stop euthanasia is to stop puppy mills, breeders, and irresponsible guardians from bringing more dogs and cats into a world that does not offer them the chance for a home—and the only way to do that is by passing mandatory spay-and-neuter legislation and implementing a full-scale ban on breeding. We invite every caring person to join us in working toward the day when every animal has a loving home."
http://features.peta.org/petasaves/...m_medium=CPC&gclid=CNrC_pOi8bgCFed_Qgod5F8A0Q

 

[Cephus]

I would really hate to see this happen, as religious fundamentalism is essentially the same, in concept, as environmentalism, humanism, and any of a variety of strongly held belief systems regarding what is right vs what is wrong.

No it's not. It's the same as EXTREMIST environmentalism, humanism, etc., but it's the EXTREMISM that's the problem. It's when one takes leave of one's senses to embrace a dogma which cannot be challenged. The same problems that we see in environmental terrorists can be found among religious terrorists, the desire to do anything to support their cause, without exception.

 

[Cephus]

Slavery is wrong.

Now while I agree with you subjectively, please demonstrate that this is a factually correct statement. You can't do it.

Plenty of religions think that slavery is right. That's not subjective. Burning people alive is wrong. Gouging out people's eyes is wrong. Beating a woman into being subservient to a man is wrong. Selling a woman into marriage is wrong. These are all things promoted by religions. Not subjective at all.

You seem to be confusing your own subjective views with being "right". It's not necessarily so.

 

[Cephus]

Oh, they do a lot of things. PETA actually kills most of the animals in their "shelters." About 90%. Some vandalize or even set fire to research facilities. Yeah, they can get pretty bad.

That's because PETA wants to end the pet trade entirely. In fact, if you read some of their most extremist literature, they want to genocide the entire human race.

 

[Hard Truth]

That's because PETA wants to end the pet trade entirely. In fact, if you read some of their most extremist literature, they want to genocide the entire human race.

Link? I don't believe it.

 

[TiredOfLife]

That's because PETA wants to end the pet trade entirely. In fact, if you read some of their most extremist literature, they want to genocide the entire human race.

Remind me to send them a check.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Remind me to send them a check.

Lol....

 

[afr0byte]

Remind me to send them a check.

Indeed. I can easily buy the idea that they want to end the pet trade, but I'd like to see this article calling for human genocide.